Members Jim Desmond, Chair Mayor, City of San Marcos (Representing North County Inland) Bill Sandke, Vice Chair Councilmember, City of Coronado (Representing South County) Georgette Gomez Councilmember, City of San Diego Ron Roberts TRANSPORTATION Supervisor, County of San Diego Bill Baber Councilmember, City of La Mesa COMMITTEE (Representing East County) Catherine Blakespear Mayor, City of Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal) AGENDA David Arambula Metropolitan Transit System Friday, June 15, 2018 John Aguilera Vice Chair, North County Transit District 9 a.m. to 12 noon April Boling SANDAG Board Room Director, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 401 B Street, 7th Floor Garry Bonelli San Diego Vice Chair, San Diego Unified Port District
Alternates Judy Ritter AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Mayor, City of Vista (Representing North County Inland) Mary Salas • DRAFT 2018 COORDINATED PLAN Mayor, City of Chula Vista (Representing South County) Mark Kersey • PROPOSED FY 2019 PROGRAM BUDGET Councilmember, City of San Diego AMENDMENTS: STATE GRANT AWARDS Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego Greg Cox Supervisor, County of San Diego PLEASE SILENCE ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING THE MEETING Jennifer Mendoza Councilmember, City of Lemon Grove (Representing East County) YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Jewel Edson MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEBSITE AT SANDAG.ORG Councilmember, City of Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal) Lorie Bragg Metropolitan Transit System MISSION STATEMENT Bill Horn / Mark Packard North County Transit District The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional Vacant decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; San Diego County Regional plans, engineers, and builds public transit; and provides information on a broad range of topics Airport Authority pertinent to the region’s quality of life. Michael Zucchet Commissioner, San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ sandag.org Advisory Members Tim Gubbins / Ann Fox Caltrans District 11 Erica Pinto, Jamul Allen Lawson, San Pasqual Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association
Kim Kawada Chief Deputy Executive Director, SANDAG
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee (Committee) on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Request to Comment form, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the form to the Committee Clerk seated at the front table. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
Both agenda and non-agenda comments should be sent to SANDAG via [email protected]. Please include the committee name and meeting date, agenda item, your name, and your organization. Any comments, handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the Committee meeting should be received by the Clerk of the Board no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting. All public comments and materials received by the deadline become part of the official project record, will be provided to the members for their review at the meeting, and will be posted to the agenda file as a part of the handouts following each meeting.
In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at www.sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for e-notifications via our e-distribution list either at the SANDAG website or by sending an email request to [email protected].
SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints, and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to the SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900 or (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request, call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión.
如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.
请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求. SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.
2 012418 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, June 15, 2018
ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
The Transportation Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its June 1, 2018, meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
CONSENT
+3. UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY PROJECT: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVE QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION (Alison Moss and Kiran Kaur)
The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the University Bikeway project.
+4. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 FEDERAL RECOMMEND FISCAL YEAR 2019 APPORTIONMENT (Michelle Smith)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the Federal Fiscal Year 2019 apportionment of Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program funds for the San Diego region.
REPORTS
+5. DRAFT 2018 COORDINATED PLAN (Lisa Madsen) ACCEPT
The Transportation Committee is asked to accept the Draft 2018 Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan for release to the public for review and comment.
3 +6. PROPOSED FY 2019 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENTS: STATE RECOMMEND GRANT AWARDS (Dawn Vettese and Sandi Craig)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the proposed FY 2019 Program Budget amendments, accepting $493.803 million in state funds for various Capital and Overall Work Program projects; and (2) adopt Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Resolution No. RTC-2018-07, approving Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
+7. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND STATE TRANSIT RECOMMEND ASSISTANCE CLAIMS (Ariana zur Nieden)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) adopt Resolution Nos. 2018-23 through 2018-29, approving the FY 2019 Transportation Development Act and State Transit Assistance Act (STA) claims, and FY 2018 STA State of Good Repair claim; and (2) adopt the STA findings as certified by North County Transit District.
+8. PROPOSED FY 2019 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: RECOMMEND LOS PEÑASQUITOS LAGOON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (Angela Anderson)
The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Program Budget, adding $979,267 in federal funds to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement Project (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1145000) for construction capital and support.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
If the five-speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.
10. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, July 6, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
11. ADJOURNMENT + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-1 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS JUNE 1, 2018
The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Jim Desmond (North County Inland) at 9:01 a.m.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE)
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Bill Baber (East County), and a second by Director April Boling (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), the Transportation Committee approved the meeting minutes of May 18, 2018. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Bill Sandke (South County), Supervisor Bill Horn (County of San Diego), Councilmember Baber, Mayor Catherine Blakespear (North County Coastal), Councilmember Lorie Bragg (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), Vice Chair John Aguilera (North County Transit District [NCTD]), SDCRAA Director Boling, and Vice Chair Garry Bonelli (San Diego Unified Port District [SDUPD]. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Jack Shu, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, spoke regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the region.
John Wotzka, a member of the public, submitted written comments and spoke about various transportation matters.
Chair Desmond announced that the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) has a vacancy. The Committee has seven members and the open seat is reserved for a professional with experience in real estate, land economics, and/or right-of-way acquisition. This member will serve through May 2020, with an option to reapply for an additional term. The ITOC implements the TransNet program by helping to provide accountability for expenditures and developing recommendations for performance improvements. Applications are due to SANDAG by June 25; information and applications can be found on the SANDAG website.
CONSENT
3. TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM: LAND MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM QUARTERLY STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
This report provided an update on progress made by TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant Program recipients.
4. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: QUARTERLY STATUS UPDATE (INFORMATION)
This report provided an update on progress made by TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program recipients.
Action: Consent Item Nos. 3 and 4 were presented for information.
REPORTS
5. CALIFORNIA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 4
+5A. REGIONAL CALL FOR PROJECTS (RECOMMEND)
Jenny Russo, Senior Contracts and Procurement Analyst, presented the item.
Action: Upon a motion by Chair Desmond, and a second by Councilmember Baber, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 2018-20, certifying the submission of the proposed 2019 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines for the San Diego Regional Competition to the California Transportation Commission for use in the 2019 San Diego Regional ATP competition, as amended. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego), Councilmember Baber, Mayor Blakespear, Councilmember Bragg, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, SDCRAA Director Boling, and SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego.
+5B. SANDAG PROJECTS FOR STATEWIDE COMPETITION (ADOPT)
Linda Culp, Principal Regional Planner, presented the item.
Action: Upon a motion by NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, and a second by SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli, the Transportation Committee adopted Resolution No. 2018-21, approving the submission of the proposed active transportation projects for the fourth cycle of the California Active Transportation Program grant program. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Supervisor Roberts, Councilmember Baber, Mayor Blakespear, Councilmember Bragg, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, SDCRAA Director Boling, and SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego.
2
6. PROPOSED USE OF DESIGN-SEQUENCING: STATE ROUTE 11 OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY PROJECT (RECOMMEND)
Mario Orso, Caltrans Corridor Director, presented the item.
Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Sandke, and a second by Mayor Blakespear, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 2018-22, finding that use of the design-sequencing project delivery method on Segments 2A and 4 of the State Route 11 Otay Mesa East Port of Entry Project (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1201101) would expedite completion, and authorizing the use of the design-sequencing project delivery method. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Supervisor Roberts, Councilmember Baber, Mayor Blakespear, Councilmember Bragg, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, SDCRAA Director Boling, and SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego.
7. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE 2019-2050 REGIONAL PLAN - SOCIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH (RECOMMEND)
Jane Clough, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.
Jack Shu, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, spoke regarding pollution impacts to disadvantaged communities.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Blakespear, and a second by Vice Chair Sandke, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed Social Equity Analysis Framework and Approach for San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Supervisor Roberts, Councilmember Baber, Mayor Blakespear, Councilmember Bragg, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, SDCRAA Director Boling, and SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego.
8. ASSEMBLY BILL 805 PUBLIC TRANSIT REPORT (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION)
Jennifer Williamson, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.
The Transportation Committee was asked to review and comment on the draft Assembly Bill 805 Public Transit Report.
Jack Shu, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, spoke in support of this item.
Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Sandke, and a second by Councilmember Bragg, the Transportation directed staff to modify the draft Assembly Bill 805 Public Transit Report (Report) to include the comments made by the Transportation Committee, and recommended that the Board of Directors forward the Report to the Legislature. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Supervisor Roberts, Councilmember Baber, Councilmember Bragg, NCTD Vice Chair Aguilera, and SDCRAA Director Boling. No: Mayor Blakespear. Abstain: None. Absent: City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified Port District.
3
9. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: DRAFT PROJECT RANKINGS AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOURTH CYCLE OF FUNDING (DISCUSSION)
Carolina Ilic, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item.
The Transportation Committee provided feedback and direction on the draft project rankings and funding recommendations for the fourth cycle of the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program.
Action: This item was presented for discussion.
10. TransNet ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM LAND MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM: DRAFT PROJECT RANKINGS AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NINTH CYCLE OF FUNDING (DISCUSSION)
Sarah Pierce, Regional Planner II, presented the item.
The Transportation Committee provided feedback on the draft project rankings and recommendations for the ninth cycle of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant Program.
Action: This item was presented for discussion.
11. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY URBAN AREA TRANSIT STRATEGY UPDATE (INFORMATION)
Ms. Williamson provided an update on the Advanced Technology Urban Area Transit Strategy, which will inform the development of the transit network included in San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan.
Jack Shu, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, talked about the need to stay focused on the original goals of the Urban Area Transit Strategy.
Sofie Wolfram, Climate Action Campaign, talked about the need to continue to shift policies and investment in transit.
Action: This item was presented for information.
12. REGIONAL CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING FRAMEWORK (ReCAP) (INFORMATION)
Allison Wood, Associate Regional Planner, and Katie Hentrich, Regional Planner II, presented an overview of the Regional Climate Action Planning Framework (ReCAP), a regional guidance document for local governments to promote the use of consistent methodologies and the best available data in local climate action planning activities.
13. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no continued public comments.
4
14. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, June 15, 2018.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Desmond adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m.
5 Meeting Start Time: 9:01 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 11:42 a.m. CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 1, 2018
JURISDICTION NAME MEMBER / ALTERNATE ATTENDING
Catherine Blakespear Member Yes North County Coastal Jewel Edson Alternate Yes
Jim Desmond (Chair) Member Yes North County Inland Judy Ritter Alternate Yes
Bill Baber Member Yes East County Jennifer Mendoza Alternate Yes
Bill Sandke (Vice chair) Member Yes South County Mary Salas Alternate No
Georgette Gomez Member No City of San Diego Mark Kersey Alternate No
Ron Roberts Member Yes
County of San Diego Bill Horn Alternate Yes
Greg Cox Alternate No
David Arambula Member No Metropolitan Transit System Lorie Bragg Alternate Yes
John Aguilera Member Yes
North County Transit District Bill Horn Alternate Yes
Mark Packard Alternate No
San Diego County Regional Airport April Boling Member Yes Authority VACANT Alternate --
Garry Bonelli Member Yes San Diego Unified Port District Michael Zucchet Alternate No
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Tim Gubbins Member Yes Caltrans Ann Fox Alternate No
Erica Pinto Member Yes SCTCA Allen Lawson Member No
Matt Tucker NCTD Yes
Other Attendees Sharon Cooney/ MTS Yes Paul Jablonski
Ex Officio Steve Vaus SANDAG Board Vice Chair No
6 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-3 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: APPROVE
UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY PROJECT: File Number 1223081 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION
Introduction Recommendation
SANDAG staff has completed preliminary engineering The Transportation Committee is asked design for the University Bikeway (Project). The Project to approve the California Environmental is covered by California Environmental Quality Act Quality Act exemption for the University (CEQA) provisions for classes of projects that are Bikeway project (Attachment 1). exempt from requirements to prepare environmental documents. A detailed description is provided in Attachment 1 and a map of the Project Area is provided in Attachment 2.
Discussion
Project Overview
The University Bikeway will improve east-west travel for people riding bikes through the Mid-City area by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, parks, transit stops, and commercial areas. The University Bikeway spans Estrella Avenue from Orange Avenue to University Avenue, and University Avenue from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street, just past the City of San Diego border with La Mesa. Proposed project features include separated bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, and protected intersections designed to make the streets more pleasant for people who walk, bike, work, and live there.
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000-21189) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.) identify classes of projects that have been granted exemptions from CEQA by the Legislature (statutory exemptions), and classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and declare these classes of projects to be categorically exempt from CEQA (categorical exemptions). There are no exceptions to using statutory exemptions. There are exceptions to using categorical exemptions depending on the nature or location of a project or its environmental impacts.
Staff has reviewed these provisions and concluded that the Project is covered by a combination of three CEQA exemptions: two categorical exemptions, “Class 1. Existing Facilities” and “Class 4. Minor Alterations to Land” (CCR Sections 15301[c] and 15304[h]) and one statutory exemption for “Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas” (PRC Section 21080.20.5). The Project’s compliance with these CEQA provisions is summarized below and described in more detail in Attachment 1.
The Class 1 and Class 4 categorical exemptions cover the types of physical improvements included in the Project, including but not limited to alterations to existing city streets, curbs, intersections, and related facilities that result in negligible or no expansion of existing uses and creating new bicycle lanes in existing rights-of-way. Moreover, the Project does not meet any of the exceptions that preclude use of the categorical exemptions provided in CCR Section 15300.2.
The Project is covered by the statutory exemption because it includes restriping for bicycle lanes in an urbanized area, consistent with the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan. As described below, staff has completed the actions that CEQA requires before the Transportation Committee can consider approving the statutory exemption: (1) prepared an assessment of the Project’s vehicular traffic and bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts (traffic and safety impact assessment); (2) held a noticed public hearing; and (3) heard and responded to public comments.
Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment
As required by PRC Section 21080.20.5(b)(1)(A), staff prepared an assessment of the Project’s traffic and safety impacts, which concludes that the Project does not result in any adverse bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts. The assessment also concludes that the project would result in vehicular traffic impacts, as defined by City of San Diego Significance Thresholds for Traffic Impacts, at two street segments and two intersections. The assessment was published on May 1, 2018, along with notice of the Project’s public hearing. The assessment is provided as Attachment 3.
Public Hearing
As required by PRC Section 21080.20.5(b)(2), a noticed public hearing was held on May 16, 2018, to hear public comments on the Project. The hearing was held in the Project area at the Joan Kroc Center on University Avenue in San Diego, California. Public comments made at the public hearing, along with staff responses to those comments, are described below.
Responses to Comments
Responses to public comments on the Project are provided in Attachment 4. A total of 18 individuals or organizations provided comments on the Project. Verbal and written comments were provided and accepted at the open house and public hearing on May 16, 2018. Comments were also submitted to staff via email between May 1, 2018 and June 15, 2018. Thirty people attended the open house and public hearing.
The majority of comments received expressed support for the project. Specific concerns regarding the project related mostly to improvements beyond the project scope, project location and design, vehicle congestion and access, and maintenance of protected bikeways. Staff organized all comments received according to common themes and provided a written response to each common theme (Attachment 4).
2 Copies of all written comments, emails, and court reporter-prepared transcripts of the verbal comments are provided in Appendix A of Attachment 4.
Public Outreach
In addition to the May 16, 2018, public hearing, public outreach, and community involvement have occurred throughout the planning and development of the Project. The University Bikeway Project is one of six projects included in the North Park | Mid-City Bikeways. Since the North Park | Mid-City Bikeways planning process began in 2013, over 100 community meetings have been held. Presentations specifically on the University Bikeway have been made to these community groups throughout the life of the project: City Heights Area Planning Committee, the City Heights Built Environment Team, the Eastern Area Planning Committee, the Rolando Community Council, and the El Cerrito Community Association. Throughout the process, the Project website has been kept up-to- date to inform interested persons about the Project.
Next Steps
Pending approval of the CEQA exemption, staff would move forward with final design and construction of the Project, which is expected to be ready to advertise for construction in August 2020, with construction expected to begin in December 2020, and the bikeway open to the public in December 2021.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Notice of Exemption for the University Bikeway Project 2. University Bikeway Project Area 3. Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment for the University Bikeway 4. Responses to Comments on the University Bikeway
Key Staff Contact: Alison Moss, (619) 595-5354, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1 Notice of Exemption
To: From:
Office of Planning and Research San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 401 B Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 San Diego, CA 92101
County Clerk County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92101
Project Title: University Bikeway Project (“proposed project”).
Project Location: City of San Diego, San Diego County.
Description of Specific Location, Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: The proposed University Bikeway would improve east-west travel for people riding bikes through the Mid-City area by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, parks, transit stops, and commercial areas. The University Bikeway spans Estrella Avenue from Orange Avenue to University Avenue and University Avenue from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street, just past the city border with La Mesa. Proposed project features include separated bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, and protected intersections designed to make the streets more pleasant for everyone – people who walk, bike, work, and live there.
The proposed project would help fulfill the vision laid out in Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bike Plan (May 2010) (Bike Plan) to make riding a bike a more convenient and safer choice for everyday travel. The proposed project is part of the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (Bike EAP, 2013), a 10-year effort to expand the regional bike network and complete high-priority bikeway projects approved in The Bike Plan. The Bike Plan and Bike EAP are part of the region’s efforts to make riding a bike a viable, attractive choice for everyday trips.
The proposed project is also consistent with local plans to provide an enhanced bicycle facility along University Avenue: the Mid-City Communities Plan specifies a bikeway from west of the project corridor to College Avenue, and the full project corridor is recommended in the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (2013).
The purpose of the proposed project is to make it more convenient, attractive, and safe for people to ride bikes for everyday trips. In addition to benefitting people on bikes, the traffic calming elements in the proposed project will also benefit people who walk and drive by making roadways safer for all users. By supporting bike riding as a viable choice for everyday trips, the proposed project would support local, regional, and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled. The University Avenue Bikeway will improve, and complete, overall east-west bicycle travel within the City Heights and Eastern Area neighborhoods of San Diego by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, transit stops, and commercial centers. In addition to enhancing mobility for people riding bikes, some of the improved locations will include enhancements for people who walk, as well as new opportunities for landscaped areas, resulting in multi-modal benefits to the overall circulation network, including enhanced safety. A description of the proposed project is provided below.
Estrella Avenue between Orange Avenue and University Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the existing lane configuration and add shared lane markings, or “sharrows”, on both sides of the street, providing a connection with the Howard-Orange Bikeway. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street.
4 Notice of Exemption
University Avenue between Estrella Avenue and 50th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one eastbound through lane to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. A raised median is expected to be installed that would prevent southbound and eastbound left-turn movements while maintaining northbound and westbound left-turn movements. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a high-intensity activated crosswalk beacon will be installed at Estrella Avenue to facilitate crossings for people who walk and bike. The center left turn lane and parallel parking will remain.
University Avenue between 50th Street and 52nd Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the north side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between 52nd Street and Shiloh Road
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Shiloh Road and the opposite driveway are expected to be marked with signage as right-turn only during peak hours. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the north side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between Shiloh Road and 54th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will be removed from the south side of the street. 54th Street is expected to be converted to a protected intersection
University Avenue between 54th Street and 58th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the existing configuration and provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Parallel parking will remain on the north side of the street. Between Chollas Parkway and 58th Street, parallel parking will remain on the south side of the street located between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike. Access to and from Chollas Parkway will be closed. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a HAWK will be installed at the former intersection to allow convenient pedestrian crossing to bus stops. At 58th Street, a protected intersection treatment is expected to be installed for the eastbound approach, and a protected bike lane is expected to be installed for the westbound approach.
University Avenue between 58th Street and College Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one eastbound through lane to provide protected bike lanes on both sides of the street. Protected bike lanes are expected to be installed at intersection approaches at University Square Driveway, 60th Street, and College Avenue. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands.
University Avenue between College Avenue and Rolando Boulevard In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Cartagena Drive and Bonillo Drive are expected to be marked with signage as right- turn only during peak hours. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a rectangular rapid flash beacon is additionally expected to be installed at Bonillo Drive. Protected bike lanes are expected to be installed at intersection approaches at Rolando Boulevard. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street.
5 Notice of Exemption
University Avenue between Rolando Boulevard and Alamo Drive
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. A protected bike lane is expected to be installed at the eastbound intersection approach at Aragon Drive. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the south side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between Alamo Drive and 70th Street
At 70th Street, a crosswalk is expected to be added to the east side of the intersection. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, located between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane for the majority of the segment. The City of San Diego border with La Mesa is crossed in this segment at University Avenue & 69th Street, and the segment of University Avenue from 69th Street to 70th Street lies within the City of La Mesa. Partway through this segment, the eastern terminus of the project, the buffered bike lanes will transition to standard bike lanes on the north side of the street to tie into the existing configuration at the 70th Street intersection as well as planned improvements on University Avenue east of 70th Street.
Other Potential Improvements: In addition to the improvements described in the preceding paragraphs, the project proposes several other treatments to facilitate the safe and comfortable movement of people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor. Other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include the following: new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, protected bike phases, bike-specific signal heads, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing and shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and/or similar minor physical improvements.
Name of Public Agency Approving and Carrying out Project: San Diego Association of Governments
Exempt Status:
☒ Statutory Exemption. State code number: 21080.20.5 ☒ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301(c); 15304(h)
Reasons why project is exempt:
The attached table explains the reasons why the proposed project is exempt from CEQA.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Keith Greer Area Code/Telephone: 619-699-7390
Signature: ______Date: ______Title: ______
☒ Signed by Lead Agency
6 Notice of Exemption
University Bikeway
Reasons Why Exempt from CEQA
The table below explains the reasons why the proposed project qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.5, and Categorical Exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(c) and 15304(h).
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
Statutory Exemption, Section 21080.20.5 Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas (a) This division does not apply to a project that consists of As explained below, the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Diego’s the restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes Bicycle Master Plan (“City’s Bike Plan”) (City of San Diego 2013), which meets in an urbanized area that is consistent with a bicycle the requirements of a bicycle transportation plan set forth in Section 891.2 of the transportation plan prepared pursuant to Sec. 891.2 of Streets and Highways Code. The proposed project would provide separated bike the Streets and Highways Code. lanes, buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, and protected intersections along Estrella Avenue from Orange Avenue to University Avenue and University Avenue from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street. These improvements are consistent with and enhance the proposed Bicycle Boulevard classification in the City’s Bike Plan (Figure 6.2 (page 98); Table 3-2 (page 21).
While some of the facility types proposed by the project are not identical to those identified in the City’s Bike Plan, the proposed project is consistent because it proposes bikeways and improvements that provide equal or enhanced levels of perceived and actual safety, comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness to people on bikes than the facility types identified in the City’s Bike Plan. In addition, Section 6.1.2 of the City’s Bike Plan (page 94) explains that its proposed bikeway classifications are expected to be used as a guide and may change at project implementation. (b) Prior to determining that a project is exempt pursuant Please see the following cells for explanation of how the proposed project meets to this section, the lead agency shall do both of the both of the following requirements. following:
7 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
(1) (A) Prepare an assessment of any traffic and safety SANDAG has prepared an assessment of the proposed project’s traffic and safety impacts of the project and include measures in impacts, which concludes that the proposed project would not result in any adverse the project to mitigate potential vehicular bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts. The assessment also concludes that the traffic impacts and bicycle and pedestrian project would result in adverse traffic impacts at two street segments (University safety impacts. Avenue Between Estrella Avenue and 54th Street and University Avenue between College Avenue and 70th Street) and two intersections (University Avenue and 54th Street and University Avenue and College Avenue). Impacts at the two street segments are due to not meeting the City of San Diego’s standards for Level of Service and the change in roadway classification from that identified in the adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Impacts at the two intersections are due to restrictions on right turns on red lights. To offset some of these traffic impacts the project includes measures such as signal optimization, traffic calming, etc. Vehicular traffic impacts are based on the City of San Diego’s significance threshold for traffic impacts. The assessment was published by SANDAG on May 1, 2018. (B) The requirement to prepare an assessment Subparagraphs (B)(i) and (ii) do not apply to the proposed project and therefore pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not apply if SANDAG has prepared an assessment as required by subparagraph (1)(A). either of the following conditions is met: (i) Measures to mitigate these impacts are identified in an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration prepared pursuant to this division for the bicycle transportation plan, certified or approved no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project. (ii) An assessment was prepared pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Sec. 21080.20 no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures to mitigate these impacts are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated
8 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
into the project. (2) Hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by SANDAG held a noticed public hearing at the Joan Kroc Center in San Diego, CA the project to hear and respond to public on May 16, 2018. SANDAG received public comments at the public hearing and comments. Publication of the notice shall be no has prepared written responses to public comments. Notice of the public hearing fewer times than required by Sec. 6061 of the was published in both English and Spanish. The English and Spanish versions were Government Code, by the public agency in a published on May 1, 2018, in the San Diego Union Tribune and El Latino, newspaper of general circulation in the area respectively. affected by the proposed project. If more than one area will be affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
(c) (1) If a state agency determines that a project is not This subparagraph does not apply to the proposed project because SANDAG is not subject to this division pursuant to this section, and a state agency. it determines to approve or carry out that project, the notice shall be filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21108. (2) If a local agency determines that a project is not If the SANDAG Board of Directors approves the use of this exemption for the subject to this division pursuant to this section, and proposed project, then SANDAG shall file notices with the Office of Planning and it determines to approve or carry out that project, Research and the Clerk of San Diego County as specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) the notice shall be filed with the OPR, and filed of Section 21152. with the county clerk in the county in which the project is located in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21152. (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, The SANDAG Transportation Committee will be asked to consider approving this 2021, and as of that date is repealed. exemption on June 15, 2018. Categorical Exemption, Section 15301(c)
9 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
15301. Existing Facilities The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it consists of minor Class I consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, alterations to existing City streets, including vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of curbs, gutters, crosswalks, parking stalls, and similar facilities. The proposed project existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical would make improvements to and repurpose space within existing City streets, and equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible there would be negligible or no expansion of existing streets. The types of minor or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of alterations to existing City streets proposed by the project that fall under this the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing exemption include but are not limited to: facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all- • inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Buffered bike lanes that are separated from vehicle traffic. Class I. The key consideration is whether the project • Class II bike lanes that are separated from vehicle traffic with a painted stripe. involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. • Class III shared lane markings consisting of signage and painted shared lane markings (i.e., sharrows) indicating that lanes are to be shared by vehicles and (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, people on bikes. bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities • Other minor alterations of existing City streets such as other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, flashing beacons, advanced signal phases for people walking and biking, protected bike phase, bike-specific signal heads, new raised medians, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing (or “conflict”) markings, shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and similar minor alterations that involve negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Categorical Exemption, Section 15304(h) 15304. Minor Alterations to Land The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it involves the creation of Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way, including buffered bike lanes, Class II bike condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not lanes, and Class III shared lane markings. The proposed project may involve the involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for removal of existing trees, but it does not involve removal of any trees that are forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are considered scenic resources, part of scenic views or vistas, or otherwise considered not limited to: scenic by any adopted plan, policy, or regulation. (h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way.
10 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
Exceptions to Use of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.2 (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by The proposed project does not meet any of these criteria that would preclude use of consideration of where the project is to be located -- a the above-listed categorical exemptions from CEQA (i.e., Sec. 15301(c) and project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the 15304(h). The proposed project and its environmental effects would be typical of environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be other projects within Class 1 and Class 4. The types of construction equipment and significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply duration of construction activity required to construct the proposed project, the all instances, except where the project may impact on an operation of the proposed project, and the resulting environmental effects (e.g., environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern temporary increases in noise levels, air emissions) would be typical of other projects where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted in Class 1 involving minor alterations to existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. and pedestrian trails, and other facilities, and other projects in Class 4 involving the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Similar to the proposed project, (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are other projects in Class 1 and Class 4 involve removal of existing travel lanes. The inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive proposed project would: projects of the same type in the same place, over time is • Not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, significant. historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a scenic (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be highway. used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility • Not be located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government that the activity will have a significant effect on the Code Section 65962.5 or otherwise have an impact on an environmental environment due to unusual circumstances. resource of hazardous or critical concern. • (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be Not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. used for a project which may result in damage to scenic • resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic Not have a reasonable possibility of causing a significant effect on the buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a environment due to unusual circumstances, or contribute to cumulative impacts highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, including This does not apply to improvements which are required as effects related to:
mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified scenic vistas, visual character, and light or glare; EIR. o o natural resources including agricultural, archaeological, biological, forestry, (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall mineral, paleontological, and water supply resources; not be used for a project located on a site which is included o air and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, noise, and on any list compiled pursuant to Sec. 65962.5 of the vibration; Government Code. earthquakes, soil erosion, or other geologic conditions; o o transport, use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials;
11 Notice of Exemption
CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not o hazards related to airports, wildfires, or flooding; be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse o adopted land use plan, policy, or regulatory conflicts change in the significance of a historical resource. o growth inducement, housing displacement, or physically dividing a community; o public services, facilities, or utilities including parks, stormwater, water supply, wastewater, landfills, schools, libraries, police and fire protection o performance or safety of the transportation system, including for vehicles, public transit, people walking and on bikes, and emergency access.
12 Attachment 2
Figure 1. University Bikeway Project Area
THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS MAP ARE NOT FINAL AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
13 Attachment 3
FINAL REPORT
North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project:
University Bikeway
Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment
April 23, 2018
Lead Agency: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101
Contact: Alison Moss, AICP, Project Manager 619.595.5354 [email protected]
Consultants to SANDAG: Fehr & Peers 555 West Beech Street, Suite 302 San Diego, CA 92109
14 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4
1.1 Project Objectives ...... 4 1.2 Project Safety and Potential Safety Benefits ...... 6 1.3 Description of Design Features and Related Physical Improvements ...... 10
2.0 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 14
2.1 Methodology for Analyzing Safety for People Who Walk and Bike ...... 14 2.2 Vehicular Traffic Methodology ...... 17 2.3 Methodologies for Intersection and Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ...... 18 2.4 Intersection and Roadway Segment Study Locations ...... 22
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT ...... 25
3.1 Existing Conditions Without the Project ...... 25 3.2 Existing Conditions With the Project ...... 37
4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT ...... 51
4.1 Future Conditions Without the Project (Year 2022) ...... 51 4.2 Future Conditions With the Project (Year 2022) ...... 52
5.0 REFERENCES ...... 60
i
15 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Appendices
Appendix A: Typical Cross Sections Appendix B: Traffic Counts Appendix C: City of San Diego Roadway Segment Analysis Criteria Appendix D: Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix E: Roadway Segment Volume Growth Calculations Appendix F: Synchro 9.0 Arterial Analysis Appendix G: Queueing Analysis and Worksheets Appendix H: Signal Analysis at Estrella Avenue & University Avenue
List of Figures
Figure 1 Pedestrian Survival Rate by Vehicle Speed (SFMTA 2014) ...... 7 Figure 2 University Bikeway Alignment and Proposed Improvements ...... 11 Figure 3 University Bikeway Study Locations ...... 24 Figure 4 University Avenue Bicycle Collisions (2012-2016) ...... 26 Figure 5 University Avenue Pedestrian Collisions (2012-2016) ...... 28
ii
16 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
List of Tables
Table 1 Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Roadway Segments with Bikeways or Bike Lanes ...... 15 Table 2 Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Roadway Segments without Bikeways or Bike Lanes ...... 15 Table 3 Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Intersection Approaches ...... 16 Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...... 20 Table 5 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...... 21 Table 6 Intersection Level of Service Results for Existing Without Project...... 34 Table 7 Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Without the Project ...... 36 Table 8 Roadway Segment Level of Traffic Stress for Existing Conditions Without and With Project ...... 38 Table 9 Intersection Approach Level of Traffic Stress for Existing Conditions Without and With Project on University Avenue ...... 40 Table 10 Part 1: Roadway Segment Analysis For Existing Without and With Project ...... 45 Table 11 Part 2: Roadway Segment Arterial Analysis for Existing With Project...... 46 Table 12 Intersection Level of Service Results for Existing Without and With Project ...... 49 Table 13 Part 1: Roadway Segment Analysis For Future Without and With Project...... 53 Table 14 Part 2: Roadway Segment Analysis for Future With Project ...... 55 Table 15 Intersection Level of Service Results for Future Without and With Project ...... 58
iii
17 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment analyzes the impacts of the University Bikeway Project (“proposed project”) to vehicular traffic as well as to safety for people who walk and bike in the proposed project area. Preparation of this assessment is required before the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the project’s lead agency, can make a determination that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.5.
The proposed project will make it easier and safer for people of all ages and abilities to walk and bike within San Diego’s Mid-City communities, including City Heights and the Eastern Area communities, and it will connect the Mid-City communities to the City of La Mesa. The project is consistent with plans to provide an enhanced bicycle facility along University Avenue: the Mid-City Communities Plan specifies a bikeway from west of the project corridor to College Avenue, and the full project corridor is recommended in the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (2013), and the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (2013) (Project #14). The proposed project will include design elements and traffic safety measures that enhance the experience for people biking and walking, make streets safer for all users – including those who drive – and benefit people who live, recreate, work, and do business in the neighborhoods served by the proposed project. This is especially important on the University Avenue Corridor, which is designated as a Vision Zero Corridor in the (2015) Vision Zero San Diego report by Circulate San Diego.1
The University Bikeway spans Estrella Avenue from Orange Avenue to University Avenue and University Avenue from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street. It connects to the Howard-Orange Bikeway along Estrella Avenue. For the most part, the bikeway consists of buffered bike lanes – enabled through the removal of one through lane in each direction – and is enhanced by treatments such as protected intersections and protected bike lanes. The typical section of the proposed project generally includes two or four travel lanes, two buffered bike lanes, and two parallel parking lanes. For approximately one quarter of the project, the buffered bike lanes are additionally provided with parking protection, further increasing the comfort of people who bike in the corridor.
1 Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. It has been championed across Europe and the United States and was adopted by the City of San Diego City Council in October 2015. According to the (2015) Vision Zero San Diego report by Circulate San Diego, the Vision Zero Corridors consist of eight corridors that represent 30 percent of all collisions with people walking and 15 percent of all collisions with people bicycling. They also expect to contain 61 percent of all the expected population growth in the City of San Diego and 25 percent of all growth in the region. More information on Vision Zero and the corridors can be found in the referenced report.
1
18 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to the buffered and parking-protected bike lanes, the project proposes several other treatments to facilitate the safe and comfortable movement of people walking, biking, and driving along the corridor. Other physical improvements which may be installed as part of the proposed project could include the following: new painted crossings at intersections or mid-block, pedestrian hybrid beacons, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing (or “conflict”) markings, shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and similar minor physical improvements.
WALKING AND BICYCLING SAFETY IMPACTS
The assessment concludes that the proposed project will result in potential safety benefits for people that walk and bike – and also take transit or drive – in the project area. The proposed project will decrease the level of traffic stress for people walking and biking along and across roadways in the project area by installing protected bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared lane markings, modified signal phasing for bicyclists and pedestrians, and other measures to calm motor vehicle traffic. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any adverse bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts, and accordingly no additional bicycle and pedestrian safety mitigation measures beyond the project features are needed.
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The assessment also concludes that most University Avenue roadway segments in the study area will meet City of San Diego criteria for vehicular traffic conditions with implementation of the proposed project, except for segments within the following roadway sections: 1) between Estrella Avenue and 54th Street; and 2) between College Avenue and 70th Street. Traffic conditions along these segments worsen to LOS E or F with the implementation of the project, triggering a second tier of analysis. The study results along these segments meet the City of San Diego arterial analysis operating criteria, but the project causes these segments to be inconsistent with City standards due to below-standard intersection operations and because the proposed change in roadway classification (from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial or 2-lane collector with center left-turn lane) is not identified in the adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. The reduction in vehicle capacity is needed to accommodate the proposed improvements that enhance safety for all transportation modes.
2
19 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
The study intersections would meet the City of San Diego operating standard under existing and future conditions with the proposed project, except at the following locations: University Avenue & 54th Street and University Avenue & College Avenue. To be consistent with City intersection operating standards at these locations, additional travel lanes would need to be maintained or signal phasing would need to be modified to allow right turns on red. Both of these potential changes would compromise bicycle comfort and safety and would conflict with the project goals.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES:
• Safety for people who walk and bike along the project corridor would improve with the proposed project. • In proposing a Class II bikeway, the project is consistent with community, city, and regional plans to provide an enhanced bicycle facility along the corridor. • Two road segments would be inconsistent with City of San Diego standards due to intersection operations below LOS D and the project reconfiguring a 4-lane major arterial shown in the Community Plan to a 2-lane major arterial and 2-lane collector with center left-turn lane. • Under Existing and Future conditions with the project, operations at two signalized intersections would be inconsistent with City of San Diego operating standards. The potential changes necessary to meet City standards would compromise bicycle comfort and safety and would conflict with the project goals.
3
20 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter discusses the objectives of the proposed University Avenue Bikeway project, its design features and related physical improvements, and its anticipated safety features and potential safety benefits. The bikeway project is designed to increase safety and comfort for all roadway users by slowing vehicle traffic, providing designated space for people biking that is separate from where people drive, highlighting the presence of people who walk and bike, and enhancing safety at street crossings. The bikeway will link key origins and destinations including businesses, residences, schools, parks, and transit, in addition to providing a desired connection through the City Heights and Eastern Area neighborhoods.
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project is part of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (Bike EAP 2013), a 10-year effort to expand the regional bike network and complete the high-priority projects approved in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan (Regional Bike Plan) (SANDAG 2010). The Regional Bike Plan and Bike EAP are part of larger goals for the region to increase transportation choices and to make riding a bike a viable, attractive transportation choice.
The project is also consistent with local plans to provide an enhanced bicycle facility along University Avenue: the Mid-City Communities Plan specifies a bikeway from west of the project corridor to College Avenue, and the full project corridor is recommended in the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (2013).
In addition to closing gaps within the larger bikeway network that is being planned throughout the region, one of the objectives of the proposed project is to create connections between the Mid-City area of San Diego and La Mesa, including access to and through the City Heights and Eastern Area neighborhoods, and to create safe operating space and improve safety for all roadway users, including people who walk, bike, take transit and drive. The proposed project will achieve this through the implementation of Class II buffered bike lanes and Class IV protected bike lanes (made possible by removal of travel lanes), protected intersection and bend-out treatments, traffic calming, shortened street crossing distances, realigned curb ramps, improved sight distances, and traffic signal modifications.
4
21 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
There is clear and consistent policy direction on the local, regional, and state levels to enhance safety and provided connected infrastructure that supports biking and walking as viable choices for everyday trips and to reduce greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions, including but not limited to the following:
Mid-City Communities Plan (1998) City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (2002) City of San Diego Climate Action Plan (2015) SANDAG Regional Bike Plan (2010) San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (2015) SANDAG Climate Action Strategy (2010) Vision Zero San Diego (2015)
Analysis of 90 large American cities confirmed a positive correlation between how many people ride bikes and the supply of bike paths and lanes, even when controlling for other factors such as city size, climate, topography, vehicle ownership, income, and student population (Buehler 2012). Building facilities for people that walk and bike enhances safety for all roadway users, especially for women, senior citizens, and people who do not have experience riding bikes (FHWA 2015). A major reason existing ridership levels in the region are not higher is due to high levels of perceived and actual risks associated with riding a bike on the street (SANDAG 2010). Based on case studies nationwide, a large percentage of the population currently “interested in biking, but concerned about safety,” is expected to begin to ride and to ride, more often, when served by a network of safe bikeways and low stress streets (NITC 2014).
Based on factors such as its population characteristics, facility gaps, incidence of collisions, and public comments related to problem areas, the University Avenue corridor was identified by SANDAG as an area where investments in bikeway infrastructure will yield substantial benefits. As a result, the proposed project is ranked as a “high-priority project” in the Regional Bike Plan (SANDAG 2010).
Described in greater detail, the purpose of this particular project is to provide livable, complete streets that serve people of all ages and abilities, and to design innovative facilities with appropriate separation from vehicular traffic, traffic calming elements, and end-of-trip facilities. The University Avenue Bikeway will improve, and complete, overall east-west bicycle travel within the City Heights and Eastern Area neighborhoods of San Diego by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, transit stops, and commercial centers. In addition to enhancing mobility for people riding bikes, some of the improved locations will include enhancements for people who walk, as well as new opportunities for landscaped areas, resulting in multi-modal benefits to the overall circulation network, including enhanced safety.
5
22 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
The design features of the project may include:
Class II standard and buffered bike lanes Curb extensions Class III shared lane markings Enhanced pedestrian crossings Class IV physically protected bike lanes Striped crosswalks Bend-outs Bus islands
These design features are described in detail in Section 1.3.
1.2 PROJECT SAFETY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY BENEFITS
One of the major goals of the proposed project is to improve safety for all roadway users in the project area, people of all ages and abilities who walk, bike, and drive. The proposed project aims to improve safety with nearly 2.7 miles of buffered bike lanes, which provide dedicated space – along the roadway – for people who bike. In addition, the proposed project will include traffic calming features that promote safe driving speeds. The project also will improve conditions at intersections to enhance safety for people who walk, bike, and drive. These facilities provide varying degrees of perceived and actual safety desired by people who are interested in biking for transportation but are concerned about the safety of riding on streets with higher levels of traffic stress. The following facility types are proposed as part of this project:
Class II Bike Lanes Including Buffered Bike Lanes
Class II bike lanes are facilities located in roadway right-of-way and separated from vehicle lanes with a painted stripe, and in this case a two- to three- foot painted buffer (also called buffered bike lanes). These facilities lower traffic stress by providing designated space, by way of striping, for people riding bikes.
Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes are facilities located in roadway right-of-way where people on bikes share a lane with motor vehicle traffic as highlighted by “sharrows” and signage. Traffic calming devices help maintain low motor-driving speeds, thus benefitting people riding along the street, people crossing the street by walking or riding a bicycle, and vehicle drivers.
Class IV Bikeways
Class IV bikeways, or protected bike lanes, are facilities located adjacent to the roadway and separated from vehicle lanes with a physical barrier, such as flexible posts, inflexible walls or parked cars. These facilities provide the maximum amount of safety and separation from vehicles.
6
23 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TRAFFIC CALMING AND OTHER PROJECT FEATURES
Several traffic calming measures and traffic control modifications will be implemented as part of the proposed project including curb extensions, bend-outs, protected intersections, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and narrowing the road through repurposing driving lanes for bikeways. These measures will encourage safe vehicle speeds, shorten crossing distances and exposure for people walking and biking, and increase the visibility of people walking and biking, thereby improving safety for people biking, walking, and driving. These features also will generally promote efficient travel for people who bike, walk, and drive.
Encouraging safe driving speeds through traffic calming helps attract a greater number of people to walk and bike. In addition, scientific studies have shown that when people walking or biking are involved in a crash with someone driving a vehicle, there is a significantly lower chance that they will be killed or suffer a serious injury when driving speeds on streets are maintained at less than 25 to 30 mph (Department for Transport 2010). For example, as shown in Figure 1, someone who is walking and is hit by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph has a 90 percent chance of survival, but the likelihood of survival decreases to 60 percent if the driver is traveling at 30 mph, and decreases further to 20 percent if the driver is traveling at 40 mph (SFMTA 2014). Each of the traffic calming treatments listed above is briefly described in the following paragraphs.
Figure 1 Pedestrian Survival Rate by Vehicle Speed (SFMTA 2014)
7
24 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs, are extensions of the curb line into the roadway. They are common where on-street parking is available on a roadway. Bulb-outs are intended to be used for both pedestrian safety and traffic calming purposes. The extension of the curb provides a shorter length of roadway for people walking to cross along with higher visibility of crosswalks to oncoming drivers. In the event a driver needs to make a turn, the shape of the bulb-out forces drivers to make a tighter turn, which encourages safer speeds.
Protected Intersection
A protected intersection is a combination of curb extensions and bicycle lanes. This feature directs people biking onto a large curb extension, out of the intersection, so that they are more visible to drivers making right turns. In some cases, people biking would cross during a protected bike phase using bike-specific signal heads during which no right turns are allowed. The feature provides space for vehicles to yield to people walking and/or people riding bikes across the side streets without blocking traffic on the main street. Protected intersections also provide shorter crossing distances for people walking and help to define distinct travel ways for each mode (e.g., through pavement markings, colored material, or other treatment).
Bus Islands
Bus islands eliminate one of the most dangerous conflicts between people driving (busses and cars) and those riding bikes. At bus islands, people on bikes will be routed behind the bus stop waiting area, and up to sidewalk grade. Ramping this portion of the bikeway to sidewalk grade alerts people on bikes to the potential for conflicts with people walking. The bus island configuration also alerts people walking to the potential for conflicts with people on bikes. Bus islands allow for buses to make in-lane stops, reducing transit delay.
Lane Repurposing and Roadway Narrowing
When a lane is repurposed, space is reallocated so the street functions more equitably and safely. In this project, space will be reallocated to infrastructure for walking and biking. The reallocated space benefits those who live, work, and shop in the corridor, as well as those traveling through the area. Studies across the country have shown that lane repurposing can help to reduce speeding and increase safety (Florida Department of Transportation 2014).
8
25 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings
Pedestrian crossings can be enhanced using a variety of treatments including additional signing, striping, and other traffic control devices to increase driver awareness of people who walk across the vehicular travel way. Two more substantive enhancements are described below.
High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, HAWKs improve safety conditions by reducing crashes between people walking and vehicles at unsignalized intersections. HAWKs use flashing beacons that are triggered by either push buttons or a detection system. It is an intermediate option for locations that do not meet signal warrants.
Overall, traffic volumes on most of the unsignalized streets crossing the University Bikeway are relatively low and gaps for the existing or anticipated volume of people walking and biking are sufficient. However, at several locations, gaps in east-west traffic are more limited or the projected volume of traffic is expected to be higher than average given the adjacent land uses and or available facilities. At the University Avenue & Estrella Avenue intersection, for example, pedestrian and bicycle volumes crossing University Avenue are expected to be higher because of the connection to the Howard-Orange Bikeway. Due to this concentration of crossing volume, an enhanced crossing treatment was deemed an appropriate treatment at this location.
Accordingly, a High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) installation is proposed for installation at University Avenue & Estrella Avenue in order to alert people driving to the presence of people walking and biking. Additionally, a High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) installation is proposed where there is an existing intersection at University Avenue & Chollas Parkway. This intersection will be closed, and bus stops will be installed on either side of the street. Without a nearby intersection to provide a crossing to these bus stops, a HAWK will provide a safe mid-block pedestrian crossing.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, RRFBs improve safety conditions by reducing crashes between people walking and vehicles at unsignalized intersections. RRFBs use irregular light-emitting diode (LED) flash patterns similar to emergency vehicles that are triggered by either push buttons or detection system. It is a lower cost alternative to traffic signals that increases driver awareness and yielding behavior when vehicles approaching a crossing.
9
26 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN FEATURES AND RELATED PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
The University Bikeway will improve east-west travel for people riding bikes through the Mid-City area by creating inviting and convenient bikeways that connect key community destinations, including schools, parks, transit stops, and commercial areas. The University Bikeway, later referred to simply as “the corridor,” spans Estrella Avenue from Orange Avenue to University Avenue and University Avenue from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street, just past the city border with La Mesa. The bikeway alignment, along with a visualization of the proposed facility types and improvements, is illustrated in Figure 2. Typical cross sections are provided in Appendix A. The following description is based on the proposed project’s current level of design and will be finalized during the final engineering design phase, before construction.
Throughout the corridor, space for the buffered bike lanes is made possible through the removal of the travel lanes. The typical section of the University Bikeway is as follows: one parallel parking lane, one buffered bike lane, two to four travel lanes, one buffered bike lane, and one parallel parking lane. For approximately one quarter of the corridor, the parking lane is provided between the buffered bike lanes and the travel lanes, further increasing the comfort of people who bike in the corridor. Separate descriptions are provided for each instance where the section changes, and include traffic calming and/or intersection details.
Estrella Avenue between Orange Avenue and University Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the existing lane configuration and add shared lane markings, or “sharrows”, on both sides of the street, providing a connection with the Howard-Orange Bikeway. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street.
University Avenue between Estrella Avenue and 50th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one eastbound through lane to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. A raised median is expected to be installed that would prevent southbound and eastbound left-turn movements while maintaining northbound and westbound left-turn movements. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a HAWK will be installed at Estrella Avenue to facilitate crossings for people who walk and bike. The center left turn lane and parallel parking will remain.
10
27 Figure 2 University Bikeway Alignment and Proposed Improvements
28 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
University Avenue between 50th Street and 52nd Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the north side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between 52nd Street and Shiloh Road
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Shiloh Road and the opposite driveway are expected to be marked with signage as right-turn only during peak hours. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the north side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between Shiloh Road and 54th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will be removed from the south side of the street. 54th Street is expected to be converted to a protected intersection.
University Avenue between 54th Street and 58th Street
In this segment, the proposed project will maintain the existing configuration and provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Parallel parking will remain on the north side of the street. Between Chollas Parkway and 58th Street, parallel parking will remain on the south side of the street located between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike. Access to and from Chollas Parkway will be closed. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a HAWK will be installed at the former intersection to allow convenient pedestrian crossing to bus stops. At 58th Street, a protected intersection treatment is expected to be installed for the eastbound approach, and a protected bike lane is expected to be installed for the westbound approach.
University Avenue between 58th Street and College Avenue
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one eastbound through lane to provide protected bike lanes on both sides of the street. Protected bike lanes are expected to be installed at intersection approaches at University Square Driveway, 60th Street, and College Avenue. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands.
12
29 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
University Avenue between College Avenue and Rolando Boulevard
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Cartagena Drive and Bonillo Drive are expected to be marked with signage as right-turn only during peak hours. An enhanced pedestrian crossing such as an RRFB is additionally expected to be installed at Bonillo Drive. Protected bike lanes are expected to be installed at intersection approaches at Rolando Boulevard. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street.
University Avenue between Rolando Boulevard and Alamo Drive
In this segment, the proposed project will remove one travel lane in each direction to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides of the street. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. A protected bike lane is expected to be installed at the eastbound intersection approach at Aragon Drive. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, and on the south side of the street the parking will be between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane, offering additional protection for people who bike.
University Avenue between Alamo Drive and 70th Street
At 70th Street, a crosswalk is expected to be added to the east side of the intersection. Where possible, bus stops will be converted to bus islands. Parallel parking will remain on both sides of the street, located between the buffered bike lane and the travel lane for the majority of the segment. The City of San Diego border with La Mesa is crossed in this segment at University Avenue & 69th Street, and the segment of University Avenue from 69th Street to 70th Street lies within the City of La Mesa. Partway through this segment, the eastern terminus of the project, the buffered bike lanes will transition to standard bike lanes on the north side of the street in order to tie into the existing configuration at the 70th Street intersection as well as planned improvements on University Avenue east of 70th Street.
Other Improvements
In addition to the improvements described in the preceding paragraphs, the project proposes several other treatments to facilitate the safe and comfortable movement of people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor. Other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include the following: new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, protected bike phases, bike-specific signal heads, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing and shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and similar minor physical improvements.
13
30 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
2.0 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This assessment of safety for people who walk and bike is based on the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology based on the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. The assessment of the vehicular traffic conditions is based on the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998), and the City of San Diego Significance Determination Thresholds, Development Services Department (2011).
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING SAFETY FOR PEOPLE WHO WALK AND BIKE
This approach was based on the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 11-19 and uses roadway network data, including the posted speed limit, the number of travel lanes, and the presence and character of bicycle lanes, as a proxy for the comfort level of people who bike. For this analysis, roadway segments and roadway crossings are classified into one of four levels of traffic stress to characterize the actual and perceived safety of roadways for people walking and biking. The lowest level of traffic stress (LTS), LTS 1, is assigned to roads that would be suitable for most children to ride, as well as to multi-use trails or physically separated bicycle facilities that are restricted for vehicle traffic use. LTS 2 roads are those that could be comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population. The higher levels of traffic stress, LTS 3 and LTS 4, correspond to types of cyclists who will tolerate higher vehicle traffic volumes and speeds (Geller 2005). LTS 3 is the level assigned to roads that would be acceptable for current “enthused and confident” cyclists and LTS 4 is assigned to segments that are only acceptable to “strong and fearless” people on bikes. To support use of regional bikeways by people of all ages and abilities, including the University Bikeway, the bikeway program strives to achieve LTS 1 and LTS 2 wherever possible.
Table 1 and Table 2 identify the LTS criteria for roadway segments with and without bikeways or bike lanes, respectively. To evaluate the level of traffic stress for people walking or biking along roadway segments in the project area, the analysis takes into account several factors, including the presence or absence of bikeways or bike lanes, the presence or absence of physical separation between a bikeway and the roadway, the presence or absence of a parking lane, the number of travel lanes, the width of bike lanes and parking lanes, the speed limit, and how often a bike lane is blocked.
It is important to note that while LTS is a helpful tool in providing a general understanding of conditions for people who walk and bike and in determining project impacts, it does not provide a detailed
14
31 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
understanding of some of the benefits of the project’s unique design features and also lacks the nuance to paint a clear picture of what it is like to walk or bike along the project corridor. For example, LTS does not account for unique crossing improvements, pavement conditions, treatments at bus stops, etc. Therefore, it is likely that the project features would provide an even more comfortable environment than LTS suggests.
TABLE 1 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH BIKEWAYS OR BIKE LANES
Criteria LTS ≥ 1 LTS ≥ 2 LTS ≥ 3 LTS ≥ 4
Physically Separated Bikeway1
Physical Separation Present Yes N/A N/A N/A
Bike Lanes Alongside Parking Lanes
Through Lanes Per Direction 1 N/A 2+ N/A
Bike & Parking Lane Combined Width (feet) ≥ 15 14 to 14.5 ≤ 13 N/A
Speed Limit (mph) ≤ 25 30 35 ≥ 40
Bike Lane Blockage Rare N/A Frequent N/A
Bike Lanes Not Alongside Parking Lanes
2 with ≥ 2, 2 without Through Lanes Per Direction 1 N/A median median
Bike Lane Width (feet) ≥ 6 ≤ 5.5 N/A N/A
Source: MTI 2012 Note: 1. Physically separated bikeways automatically receive an LTS score of 1, regardless of other conditions. Using engineering judgement, a striped buffer of greater than or equal to 2 feet in width is considered physical separation for the LTS analyses.
TABLE 2 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITHOUT BIKEWAYS OR BIKE LANES
Speed Limit (mph) 2-3 Lanes 4-5 Lanes ≥ 6 Lanes
≤ 25 LTS 1 or 21 LTS 3 LTS 4
30 LTS 2 or 31 LTS 4 LTS 4
≥ 35 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
Source: MTI 2012 Notes: 1. The lower LTS values are assigned to residential streets with no centerline striping.
15
32 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Table 3 identifies the LTS criteria for intersection approaches. The analysis takes into account the presence of a right turn lane, the length of that lane, and the turning speed. Physically separated bike facilities at an intersection including protected bike lanes automatically receive an LTS score of 1, regardless of other conditions.
TABLE 3 LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTION APPROACHES
Criteria LTS
Physically Separated Bike Facility1
Physical Separation Present LTS 1
Pocket Bike Lanes
Single right-turn lane up to 150 ft. long, starting abruptly while the bike lane continues straight, and LTS 2 having an intersection angle and curb radius such that turning speed is < 15 mph
Single right-turn lane longer than 150 ft. starting abruptly while the bike lane continues straight, and LTS 3 having an intersection angle and curb radius such that turning speed is < 20 mph
Single right-turn lane in which the bike lane shifts to the left but the intersection angle and curb LTS 3 radius are such that turning speed is < 15 mph.
Single right-turn lane with any other configuration; dual right-turn lanes; or right-turn lane along with LTS 4 an option (through-right) lane.
Bicycles in Mixed Traffic
Single right-turn lane with length < 75 ft. and intersection angle and curb radius limit turning speed LTS 1 to 15 mph.
Single right-turn lane with length between 75 and 150 ft., and intersection angle and curb radius limit LTS 3 turning speed to 15 mph.
Otherwise. LTS 4
Source: MTI 2012 Note: 1. Physically separated bikeways automatically receive an LTS score of 1, regardless of other conditions. Using engineering judgement, a striped buffer of greater than or equal to 2 feet in width is considered physical separation for the LTS analyses.
16
33 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING OR BIKING
Collisions involving people walking or biking were assessed as a part of the analysis of the Existing Conditions Without the Project scenario. Collision data was collected from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) of the State of California, maintained by the California Highway Patrol. Collision data was assessed for the corridors and intersections within the project area from 2012 to 2016, the most recent data available. Collisions being assessed included collisions of people who walk and bike with automobiles or fixed objects, identifying injuries and fatalities associated with these collisions.
2.2 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC METHODOLOGY
The vehicular traffic operations study methodology and analysis are consistent with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual, 1998 and City of San Diego Significance Determination Thresholds, 2011.
Four study scenarios were analyzed. Intersections were analyzed for the morning peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The intersection analysis is based on the busiest one hour of traffic during each peak period. The roadway segment analysis examines daily roadway capacity over a 24-hour period. The four scenarios assessed are:
Existing Conditions without the Project (“Existing Without Project”) Existing Conditions with the Project (“Existing With Project”) Future (2022) Conditions without the Project (“Future Without Project”) Future (2022) Conditions with the Project (“Future With Project”)
A combination of traffic modeling based on observed traffic counts and SANDAG’s Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast (SANDAG 2010) was used to determine the traffic volumes for each study scenario.
The methodologies used to calculate roadway segment and intersection traffic are described in Section 2.3, and the process by which intersections and roadway segments were selected for vehicular traffic analysis is described in Section 2.4. A field review was also conducted to determine the existing intersection and roadway segment capacities. The field review identified existing intersection geometry, traffic control devices, and traffic signal phasing.
17
34 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
The traffic modeling uses regional forecasts (SANDAG’s Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast) of population, housing, land use, and economic growth based on local jurisdiction land use plans and input, along with roadway capacities, to estimate future traffic volumes on roadways in the project area. The project is expected to be completed by Year 2022 or roughly five (5) years from the time that traffic volumes in the project corridor were studied. As such, the analysis evaluates 2022 traffic volume data to show how the proposed project will affect future traffic conditions once it is built. An average annual growth rate of approximately one percent within the project corridor was determined based on a comparison of Base Year 2012 and Future Year 2035 volumes (Appendix E).
TRAFFIC MODELING LIMITATIONS
When estimating future traffic volumes with implementation of the proposed project, the methodology does not assume any future trips will change from other travel modes (e.g., driving, transit, carpool) to biking or walking. While research indicates that the proposed project will encourage people to shift from other travel modes to biking or walking, sufficient data is not available to provide a transportation model that could accurately quantify reductions in future vehicle trips associated with implementation of the proposed project. As a result, the analysis of future vehicle traffic volumes does not assume any mode shift because of the proposed project implementation. Therefore, this analysis likely overestimates future traffic volumes and future vehicle delay as a result of the proposed project.
2.3 METHODOLOGIES FOR INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, with the least congested operating conditions, to LOS F, with the most congested operating conditions. The methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis is described below.
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY COUNT METHODOLOGY
Intersection turning movement counts involved the use of video counters to determine the total number of vehicles entering and exiting an intersection by movement (e.g., turning, through) during the weekday morning peak period from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and evening peak period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Segment counts involved laying tubes across roadway segments to count the number of vehicles during a 24-hour
18
35 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
cycle. Intersection turning movement and roadway segment volumes were obtained in 2015 and 2017. For the volumes obtained prior to 2017, an annual growth factor of approximately one percent was applied to increase volumes to Year 2017 levels. Appendix B contains the individual intersection and roadway segment traffic counts.
METHODOLOGIES FOR INTERSECTION CAPACITY AND ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
The analysis of intersection operations performed for this study is based upon procedures presented in the HCM, published by the Transportation Research Board in 2000 and 2010. Due to the HCM 2010’s limitations with unique signal timings (e.g. custom phasing), the HCM 2000 methodology was applied at one intersection. Consistent with City of San Diego guidelines, LOS A through LOS D conditions meet the operation criteria (Traffic Impact Study Manual, City of San Diego, July 1998).
The City standard for intersection operations is not met if implementation of the proposed project causes one of the following criteria to be met:
1. An intersection operating at LOS D or better under existing or future conditions without the project worsens to LOS E or F with the proposed project, or 2. The delay at an intersection operating at LOS E or F without the proposed project increases by more than 2.0 and 1.0 seconds, respectively, because of the proposed project.
Signalized Intersections
Signalized study intersections were analyzed according to the method described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This LOS method analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average control delay per vehicle. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using the Synchro 9.0 analysis software. The LOS criteria used for the analysis are described in Table 4, identifying the thresholds of control delays and the associated LOS. The intersection analysis assumes optimization of signal timings and splits (i.e., the amount of time allocated to each approach) to some intersections in the future conditions.
Unsignalized Intersections
Control delay for unsignalized intersections is based upon geometric design of intersections and the interactions of motor vehicles. Two unsignalized intersection types can be assessed by the HCM 2010 methodologies: all-way stop-controlled intersections and minor-street stop-controlled intersections.
19
36 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 4 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of Average Control Delay Description Service (seconds/vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable <10 progression and/or short cycle lengths.
B Operations with low delay occurring with good >10– 20 progression and/or short cycle lengths.
Operations with average delays resulting from fair C progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual >20 – 35 cycle failures begin to appear.
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high >35– 55 V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Operations with high delay values indicating poor E progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. >55 – 80 Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers F occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or >80 very long cycle lengths.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
All-Way Stop Controlled
The HCM 2010 method for analyzing all-way stop-controlled intersections is based on conflicting traffic for motor vehicles stopped at an intersection. Average control delay is calculated using a weighted average of the delays by volume distributed across all motor vehicles entering the intersection.
Minor-Street or Side-Street Stop Controlled
The HCM 2010 method for analyzing minor-street stop-controlled intersections is based on the concept of gap acceptance and the presence of conflicting traffic for motor vehicles stopped on the minor street approaches. Control delay and level of service for the “worst” movements are reported, as opposed to average intersection LOS and delay.
20
37 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
The average movement delay for unsignalized intersections is calculated using Synchro 9.0 analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Average Control Delay Level of Service Description (seconds/vehicle)
A Little or no delay. 10.0
B Short traffic delay. <10.1- 15.0
C Average traffic delays. <15.1- 25.0
D Long traffic delays. <25.1- 35.0
E Longer traffic delays. <35.1- 50.0
F Longest traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Roadway Segment Analysis
The roadway segment capacity analysis identifies the LOS scores for each roadway segment in the project corridor. It does so by comparing the design capacity of each roadway as determined by the City of San Diego planning documents with the existing or future traffic volumes that occur or are expected to occur on that roadway segment. This volume-to-capacity (V/C) analysis then uses City of San Diego criteria (provided in Appendix C) to determine the LOS score for each roadway segment based on the comparison of volume to capacity. A two-part analysis is performed to determine whether the proposed project meets City of San Diego criteria for traffic conditions on roadway segments.
Roadway Segment Analysis: Part 1
First, the V/C analysis is performed to determine whether the proposed project will result in the following:
Traffic conditions on any roadway segment to worsen from LOS D or better without the proposed project to LOS E or LOS F with the proposed project. A V/C ratio increase of more than 0.02 for LOS E roadway segments or 0.01 for LOS F roadway segments.
21
38 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
If a proposed project does not result in one of the above scenarios, then traffic conditions on that roadway meet the City of San Diego standards and no further analysis is required. If, however, a proposed project results in one of the scenarios described in Part 1, then a secondary analysis may be performed.
Roadway Segment Analysis: Part 2
The analysis considers the following three additional factors to determine if the roadway segment will meet the City of San Diego standards:
if the intersections at each end of the segment will operate at LOS D or higher with the project (using the intersection criteria described in Section 2.3); if traffic conditions along the segment will operate at LOS D or better based on an arterial analysis with the proposed project during the AM and PM peak hours OR speeds increase by no more than 1 mph on roadway segments which operate at LOS E or LOS F without the proposed project; and if the proposed street classification is consistent with the adopted Community Plan for the area.
If any of the three criteria are not satisfied, then traffic conditions along the roadway segment do not meet the City of San Diego standards.
2.4 INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY SEGMENT STUDY LOCATIONS
The major operational change within the University Bikeway is the removal of travel lanes in each direction. Since signalized intersections typically serve higher traffic volumes than unsignalized intersections, all signalized intersections along the corridor were analyzed. In addition, all unsignalized intersections were analyzed in this impact assessment since the elimination of through lanes on University Avenue could affect delay for movements controlled by stop signs on the cross streets.
The 20 study intersections are as follows:
1. Estrella Avenue & Polk Avenue 8. 58th Street & University Avenue 2. Estrella Avenue & University Avenue 9. University Square Driveway & University 3. Winona Avenue & University Avenue Avenue 4. 50th Street & University Avenue 10. 60th Street & University Avenue 5. 52nd Street & University Avenue 11. College Avenue & University Avenue 6. Shiloh Road & University Avenue 12. Cartagena Drive & University Avenue 7. 54th Street & University Avenue 13. Bonillo Drive & University Avenue
22
39 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
14. Rolando Boulevard & University Avenue 18. 68th Street & University Avenue 15. Aragon Drive & University Avenue 19. 69th Street & University Avenue 16. Alamo Drive & University Avenue 20. 70th Street/Lois Street & University 17. Salvation Driveway & University Avenue Avenue
For roadway segment analysis purposes, the corridor was divided into segments based on each signal defining a segment limit. Because the western terminus of the project is the unsignalized intersection with Estrella Avenue, the study segment was extended to the next signal to the west, Euclid Avenue. In addition, the intersection with Chollas Parkway was used as an additional dividing point due to the large volumes coming to and from the corridor at that intersection. The resulting 12 study roadway segments on University Avenue are as follows:
1. Between Euclid Avenue and Winona Avenue 2. Between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street 3. Between 52nd Street and 54th Street 4. Between 54th Street and Chollas Parkway 5. Between Chollas Parkway and 58th Street 6. Between 58th Street and University Square Driveway 7. Between University Square Driveway and 60th Street 8. Between 60th Street and College Avenue 9. Between College Avenue and Rolando Boulevard 10. Between Rolando Boulevard and Aragon Drive 11. Between Aragon Drive and Salvation Driveway 12. Between Salvation Driveway and 70th Street
Figure 3 shows the location of the intersections and roadway segments analyzed in this traffic and safety impact assessment.
23
40 70th St CollegeAve
University Ave 54th St EstrellaAve
Study Location Project Corridor [
Figure 3 University Bikeway Study Locations
41 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT
This chapter describes safety conditions for people who walk and bike as well as vehicle traffic conditions (at roadway segments and intersections) under the Existing Conditions Without the Project and Existing Conditions With the Project scenarios.
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT
This section describes existing conditions for intersections and roadway segments in the project corridor, including existing facilities and collision history for people who walk and bike, as well as vehicular traffic conditions including volumes, intersection turning movements, roadway classifications, and traffic control devices (e.g., traffic signals, stop signs).
BICYCLE FACILITIES AND COLLISION HISTORY
University Avenue has an existing Class II bike lane between 58th Street and College Avenue. Existing Class II bike lanes intersect University Avenue at 54th Street, College Avenue, and 70th Street.
Under existing conditions, the level of stress for the University Avenue project corridor is classified as LTS 4 based on the information in Table 2. The roadway is posted with a 35 to 40 mph speed limit and includes a four- to six-lane cross-section.
Collisions Involving People on Bikes
Data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) was obtained to assess the collision history within the corridor. SWITRS is a database that serves to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene. Within the University project corridor, a total of 14 collisions involving people on bikes occurred during the five-year period from 2012 to 2016, which is the latest year for which complete SWITRS data are available. This total resulted in an average of 2.8 collisions each year, although the highest number of reported collisions in a given year was four, which occurred in 2012. Of the five-year total, these collisions did not include any fatalities, but one resulted in someone suffering a severe injury, and the remaining 13 resulted in someone suffering some other type of injury. Figure 4 shows the location of bicycle collisions along the project corridor.
25
42 Collision Statistics 2012 - 4 Collisions 2013 - 3 Collisions 2014 - 1 Collision 2015 - 3 Collisions 2016 - 3 Collisions CollegeAve
University Ave 54th St
k
k Bike and Pedestrian Collision (1 Total)
Bike Only Collisions (13 Total) Project Corridor [
Figure 4 University Avenue Bicycle Collisions (2012 - 2016)
43 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
WALKING FACILITIES AND COLLISION HISTORY
Sidewalks, Curb Ramps, Crosswalks and Curb Extensions
Existing conditions without the proposed University Bikeway project in place were assessed for the presence of connected and continuous well-maintained sidewalks, curb ramps, and street crossings. Existing crosswalks are infrequent along the corridor, with separation of as much as 2,200 feet. Well-maintained curb ramps exist at most intersections. Some ramps are missing at the intersections of University Avenue & Chollas Parkway, University Avenue & Cartagena Drive, University Avenue & Alamo Drive, University Avenue & 68th Street, and University Avenue & 69th Street. Continuous sidewalks exist throughout the most of the corridor. Sidewalks are not provided on the south side of the street in the proximity of University Avenue & Chollas Parkway. On the north side of the street between 58th Street and 60th Street, a sidewalk is provided along the frontage road, but not on University Avenue where two bus stops are located. For some sections between College Avenue and Aragon Drive, no defined pedestrian path is provided and people who walk use the asphalt area of a parking lot adjacent to the curb.. Along the corridor, there are no existing curb extensions, and only one crosswalk provided at an unsignalized intersection: at University Avenue & 50th Street. At this location, the striped crosswalk across University Avenue is enhanced by a pedestrian refuge island in the raised median and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs).
Under existing conditions, the level of stress (of people walking and biking) for the University Avenue project corridor is classified as LTS 4 based on the information in Table 3. The roadway is posted with a 35 to 40 mph speed limit and includes a four- to six-lane cross-section.
Collisions Involving People Walking
A total of 32 collisions involving people walking occurred along the University Avenue project corridor during the five-year period from 2012 to 2016 (the latest dataset available), or an average of 6.4 collisions each year. In the year with the highest total, 2016, 9 collisions were reported. Of the five-year total, these collisions included two that resulted in death, four that resulted in severe injuries, and 26 that resulted in someone suffering some other type of injury. The two fatal pedestrian collisions both occurred at University Avenue and Shiloh Road in 2014. Figure 5 shows the location of collisions involving people walking along the project corridor.
27
44 Collision Statistics 2012 - 4 Collisions 2013 - 4 Collisions 2014 - 8 Collisions (2 Fatal) 2015 - 8 Collisions 2016 - 9 Collisions CollegeAve
University Ave 54th St
k
k Bike and Pedestrian Collision (1 Total)
Pedestrian Only Collisions (32 Total) Project Corridor [
Figure 5 University Avenue Pedestrian Collisions (2012 - 2016)
45 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section describes the Existing Without Project condition for intersections and roadway segments along the project corridor, including existing vehicle traffic volumes and levels of service, intersection turning movements, roadway classifications, and traffic control devices (e.g., traffic signals, stop signs).
Roadway Network
The study roadways included in the vehicular operations analysis are described briefly below. The description includes the physical characteristics, adjacent land uses, and traffic control devices along these roadways.
University Avenue is an east-west roadway that functions as a four- to five-lane major arterial and extends between Washington Street and La Mesa Boulevard. University Avenue provides direct east-west access to a number of local destinations along the project corridor including Colina Del Sol Park, Will C. Crawford Senior High School, University Square shopping center, and the Kroc Center. University Avenue has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Additionally, a Class II bike lane is provided between 58th Street and College Avenue. Driveways exist along the roadway and parking is allowed along certain sections of University Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph.
Polk Avenue is an eastbound-only local roadway that extends from 41st Street to Winona Avenue. In the vicinity of the project corridor, Polk Avenue provides access to Ibarra Elementary School and residential development. Polk Avenue has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway with parallel parking allowed on both sides. In the absence of a posted sign, the speed limit is 25 mph.
Estrella Avenue is a north-south local roadway that extends from Adams Avenue to University Avenue. In the vicinity of the project corridor, Estrella Avenue provides access to Ibarra Elementary School and residential development. Estrella Avenue has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway with parallel parking allowed on both sides. In the absence of a posted sign, the speed limit is 25 mph.
Winona Avenue is a north-south local roadway that extends from Lucille Drive to Landis Street. In the vicinity of the project corridor, Winona Avenue provides access to residential development. Winona Avenue has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of
29
46 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway with parallel parking allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
50th Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from Oakcrest Drive to Whitman Street. 50th Street provides access to residential development and Whitman Street Neighborhood Park. 50th Street has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
52nd Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from Contour Boulevard to Ogden Street. 52nd Street provides access to residential development and Colina Del Sol Park. 52nd Street has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Shiloh Road is a north-south local roadway that extends from University Avenue to Ogden Street. Shiloh Road provides access to residential development. Shiloh Road has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. In the absence of a posted sign, the speed limit is 25 mph.
54th Street is a north-south roadway that functions as a four-lane major arterial that extends from Montezuma Road to Euclid Avenue. 54th Street provides access to commercial uses including Northgate Market shopping center and residential side streets. 54th Street has existing curbs, sidewalks, an existing Class II bike lane, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides. Driveways exist along the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph.
Chollas Parkway is a northeast-southwest roadway that functions as a four-lane collector that extends from University Avenue to 54th Street. Chollas Parkway provides a bypass to the University Avenue & 54th Street intersection. Chollas Parkway has no pedestrian facilities. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
58th Street is a generally north-south roadway that functions as a two-lane collector that extends from Madison Avenue to Day Street. 58th Street provides access to residential development. 58th Street has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
30
47 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
University Square Driveway is a north-south two-lane driveway into University Square, a commercial shopping center. University Square Driveway has existing curbs and sidewalks on the east side of the roadway.
60th Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from a cul-de-sac north of University Avenue to Rock Street. 60th Street provides access to residential development and the Genie Car Wash & Oil Change. 60th Street has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, except for a small segment of the east side just south of University Avenue. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
College Avenue is a north-south roadway that functions as a four-lane major arterial that extends from Navajo Road to Federal Boulevard. College Avenue provides a connection to SDSU to the north and SR-94 to the south, in addition to commercial uses and residential side streets. College Avenue has existing curbs, sidewalks, and an existing Class II bike lane only north of University Avenue. Driveways exist along the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph.
Cartagena Drive is a north-south local roadway that extends from Rodrigo Drive to a cul-de-sac south of University Avenue. Cartagena Drive provides access to residential development north of the project corridor and commercial uses south of the corridor. Cartagena Drive has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway only north of University Avenue. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. In the absence of a posted sign, the speed limit is 25 mph.
Bonillo Drive is a north-south local roadway that extends from Marraco Way to a cul-de-sac south of University Avenue. Bonillo Drive provides access to residential development north of the project corridor and both commercial and multi-family residential development south of the corridor. Bonillo Drive has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Rolando Boulevard is a north-south roadway that functions as a two-lane collector north of the corridor and a local street south of the corridor that extends from El Cajon Boulevard to Celia Vista Drive. Rolando Boulevard provides access to residential development. Rolando Boulevard has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway only north of the stormwater channel bridge. Driveways exist along the roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Aragon Drive is a north-south local roadway that extends from El Cajon Boulevard to Livingston Street. Aragon Drive provides access to residential development. Aragon Drive has existing curbs and sidewalks on
31
48 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Alamo Drive is a north-south local roadway that extends from Rolando Boulevard to University Avenue and traces a portion of the city border with La Mesa to the north of the corridor. Alamo Drive provides access to residential development. Alamo Drive has existing curbs, sidewalks, and intermittent landscaped parkway strips and street trees on both sides of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Salvation Driveway is a north-south two-lane driveway into The Salvation Army Ray & Joan Kroc Community Center. Salvation Driveway has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
68th Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from Rolando Knolls Drive to University Avenue. 68th Street provides access to residential development. 68th Street has existing curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway for only a small segment north of the project corridor. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
69th Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from University Avenue to Livingston Street and traces a portion of the city border with La Mesa to the south of the corridor. 69th Street provides access to residential development. 69th Street has existing curbs and sidewalks on the west side of the roadway. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
70th Street is a north-south roadway that functions as a two-lane arterial that extends from Alvarado Road to University Avenue. South of University Avenue, 70th Street is designated as Lois Street. College Avenue provides a connection to Rolando Elementary School, Sunshine Park, and I-8, in addition to residential development. 70th Street has existing curbs, sidewalks, and an existing Class II bike lane. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. 70th Street, including its intersection with University Avenue, is located within the City of La Mesa.
Lois Street is a north-south local roadway that extends from University Avenue to 69th Street. Lois Street provides access to residential development and connects to 70th Street. Lois Street does not have existing pedestrian facilities. Driveways exist along the roadway and parallel parking is allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Lois Street, including its intersection with University Avenue, is located within the City of La Mesa.
32
49 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Intersection Level of Service
Existing Without Project morning and evening peak period LOS for the 20 intersections in the project area are shown in Table 6. The intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing without Project condition are provided in Appendix D. As shown in Table 6, all intersections operate at an LOS of D or better along the project corridor under existing conditions except for the following four side-street stop-controlled intersections:
2. Estrella Avenue & University Avenue (AM & 12. Cartagena Drive & University Avenue (PM PM) only) 6. Shiloh Road & University Avenue (AM & PM) 13. Bonillo Drive & University Avenue (PM only)
Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Without the Project
Existing Without Project LOS for the roadway segments along the project corridor are shown in Table 7. The assessment was based upon existing road geometry and the daily traffic volumes for the segments. Data obtained near each signalized intersection (e.g. between 50th Street and 52nd Street) was assumed to be representative of the entire segment (e.g. between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street). As shown in Table 7, all roadway segments along the project corridor operate at an LOS of D or better except for the segment from Euclid Avenue to Winona Avenue, which operates at LOS E.
33
50 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS FOR EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT
Existing Without Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Control Delay LOS2,3 (sec/veh)1 AM 7.6 A 1. Estrella Ave & Polk Ave AWSC PM 7.5 A AM 59.4 F 2. Estrella Ave & University Ave SSSC PM 65.7 F AM 20.6 C 3. Winona Ave & University Ave Signalized PM 19.5 B AM 15.9 C 4. 50th St & University Ave SSSC PM 17.0 C AM 21.9 C 5. 52nd St & University Ave Signalized PM 17.7 B AM 39.2 E 6. Shiloh Rd/Dwy & University Ave SSSC PM 50.7 F AM 39.9 D 7. 54th St & University Ave* Signalized PM 51.8 D AM 23.2 C 8. 58th Street & University Ave* Signalized PM 21.1 C AM 8.0 A 9. University Square Dwy & University Ave* Signalized PM 12.4 A AM 11.2 B 10. 60th St & University Ave* Signalized PM 16.0 B AM 40.4 D 11. College Ave & University Ave* Signalized PM 40.5 D AM 19.7 C 12. Cartagena Dr & University Ave SSSC PM 43.2 E AM 22.5 C 13. Bonillo Dr & University Ave SSSC PM 37.6 E AM 13.4 B 14. Rolando Blvd & University Ave* Signalized PM 12.0 B
34
51 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS FOR EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT
Existing Without Project Traffic Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Control Delay LOS2,3 (sec/veh)1 AM 11.7 A 15. Aragon Dr & University Ave* Signalized PM 10.3 A AM 12.6 B 16. University Ave & Alamo Dr SSSC PM 16.2 C AM 6.5 A 17. Salvation Driveway & University Ave* Signalized PM 10.4 B AM 13.1 B 18. University Ave & 68th St SSSC PM 14.5 B AM 14.2 B 19. 69th St & University Ave SSSC PM 18.3 C AM 37.8 D 20. Lois St/70th St & University Ave Signalized PM 30.0 C Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Worst movement delay reported for side-street-stop-controlled intersection 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. 3 Below-standard seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. * Existing or proposed signal phasing prevents the use of HCM 2010 at this intersection. The HCM 2000 method was applied instead.
35
52 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 7 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT THE PROJECT
Roadway Segment Roadway Classification 2 3,4 1 ADT V/C LOS ID University Avenue To/From (# of Lanes)
1 Euclid Ave Winona Ave 4C/3C w/CLTL 20,276 0.90 E
2 Winona Ave 52nd St 3/4M 20,246 0.67 C
3 52nd St 54th St 4M 21,583 0.54 C
4 54th St Chollas Pkwy 4M 22,989 0.57 C
5 Chollas Pkwy 58th St 4M 29,080 0.73 C
6 58th St University Square Dwy 5M 21,328 0.43 B
7 University Square Dwy 60th St 5M 23,838 0.48 B
8 60th St College Ave 4/5M 22,014 0.55 C
9 College Ave Rolando Blvd 4M 20,250 0.51 B
10 Rolando Blvd Aragon Dr 4M 21,645 0.54 C
11 Aragon Dr Salvation Dwy 4M 17,411 0.44 B
12 Salvation Dwy 70th St 4M 19,910 0.50 B
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 2C w/CLTL = 2-lane collector with center left-turn lane 3C w/CLTL = 3-lane collector (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction) with center left-turn lane; capacity is assumed to be 150% of 2C w/CLTL capacity 3M = 3-lane major arterial (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 75% of 4M capacity 4M = 4-lane major arterial 5M = 5-lane major arterial (3 lanes in one direction and 2 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 125% of 4M capacity 2 Volume-to-capacity ratio. Worst-case is shown on segments with multiple classifications 3 LOS calculations performed using City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) 4 Below-standard ADT volumes per segment and LOS highlighted in bold.
36
53 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT
This section analyzes how existing conditions for people who walk, bike, and drive the project corridor would be affected if the proposed project were implemented.
CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
The proposed improvements along the University Bikeway are designed to enhance safety for people walking and biking within the physical constraints of the roadway. Both people biking and walking will benefit from safer speeds along the bikeways through implementation of traffic calming devices including pedestrian hybrid beacons. In addition, new pedestrian ramps and curb extensions at selected intersections will increase the visibility of people walking to drivers and enhance ADA accessibility.
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ALONG ROADWAY SEGMENTS
The LTS for roadway segments in the project area was assessed based upon the criteria identified in the tables in Section 2.1. Table 8 compares the level of traffic stress results along roadway segments in the project area for Existing Conditions without the Project and Existing Conditions with the Project.
With implementation of the project, the level of traffic stress will improve to or maintain LTS 1 along the entire bikeway length. Overall, the project achieves LTS 1 (“suitable for children”), and is therefore consistent with best practices in low-stress network design (MTI 2012).
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR INTERSECTION CROSSINGS
The LTS for intersection crossings within the project area was assessed based upon the criteria identified in the tables in Section 2.1. Table 9 compares the level of traffic stress results along roadway segments in the project area for Existing Conditions without the Project and Existing Conditions With the Project. With implementation of the project, the level of traffic stress is reduced to LTS 1, and numerous project features will enhance safety and help to reduce the potential for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle conflicts. This includes protected intersections, shorter street crossings, better visibility of people who walk and bike, and slower overall travel speeds along the corridor. Overall, the project achieves LTS 1 (“suitable for children”), and is therefore consistent with best practices in low-stress network design (MTI 2012).
37
54 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 8 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
Existing Without Existing With Project Project Roadway Segment Bicycle Traffic Bicycle Potential Safety Traffic Facilities Stress Facilities Benefits Stress Features designed to raise Estrella Orange Avenue to Bike Boulevard driver awareness of people None Low (1) Low (1) Avenue University Avenue (both directions) who bike, reduced motor vehicle travel speeds Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University Estrella Avenue to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in number of Low (1) Avenue 50th Street directions) travel lanes, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University 50th Street to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in number of Low (1) Avenue 52nd Street directions) travel lanes, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University 52nd Street to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in number of Low (1) Avenue Shiloh Road directions) travel lanes, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University Shiloh Road to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in number of Low (1) Avenue 54th Street directions) travel lanes, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University 54th Street to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in number of Low (1) Avenue 58th Street directions) travel lanes, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity
38
55 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 8 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
Existing Without Existing With Project Project Roadway Segment Bicycle Traffic Bicycle Potential Safety Traffic Facilities Stress Facilities Benefits Stress Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University 58th Street to Buffered Low (1) lanes (both reductions in travel lane Low (1) Avenue College Avenue bike lanes directions) widths, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University College Avenue to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in travel lane Low (1) Avenue Rolando Boulevard directions) widths, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University Rolando Boulevard None High (4) lanes (both reductions in travel lane Low (1) Avenue to Alamo Drive directions) widths, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Painted buffer provides separation between people Buffered bike biking and people driving; University Alamo Drive to None High (4) lanes (both reductions in travel lane Low (1) Avenue 70th Street directions) widths, motor vehicle travel speeds, and collision severity Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018
39
56 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 9 INTERSECTION APPROACH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Cross Street(s) Crossing Treatment Traffic Stress Crossing Treatment Potential Safety Benefits Traffic Stress
Side street stop, enhanced pedestrian crossing such as a Increased visibility to drivers Side street stop only, Estrella Avenue Low (1) HAWK, bike lane leading to and awareness of people Low (1) diagonal ramps intersection on westbound walking or biking approach
Push button signal Increased visibility to drivers Signal, striped bike lane leading to Winona Avenue activation, diagonal ramps, Low (1) and awareness of people Low (1) intersection on both sides striped crosswalks biking
Side street stop, striped bike lane Side street stop only, leading to intersection on Increased visibility to drivers diagonal ramps, striped 50th Street Low (1) eastbound approach, buffered and awareness of people Low (1) crosswalks, RRFB on west bike lane leading to intersection walking or biking leg on westbound approach
Push button signal Increased visibility to drivers 52nd Street Signal, striped bike lane leading to activation, diagonal ramps, Low (1) and awareness of people Low (1) Salvation Driveway intersection on both sides striped crosswalks biking
Shiloh Road Cartagena Drive Side street stop, striped bike lane Increased visibility to drivers Side street stop only, Alamo Drive Low (1) leading to intersection on both and awareness of people Low (1) diagonal ramps 68th Street sides walking or biking 69th Street
40
57 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 9 INTERSECTION APPROACH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Cross Street(s) Crossing Treatment Traffic Stress Crossing Treatment Potential Safety Benefits Traffic Stress
Push button signal Signal, protected intersection on Increased visibility to drivers activation, diagonal ramps, all approaches, channelized right and awareness of people 54th Street striped crosswalks, two High (4) Low (1) turns expected to be converted to walking or biking, slower free channelized right curb extensions vehicle turning speeds turns
Uncontrolled except for Chollas Parkway access closed, Elimination of bicycle/ vehicle westbound left turn, no Chollas Parkway High (4)* enhanced pedestrian crossing conflicts and addition of Low (1)** curb ramps or striped such as a HAWK enhanced pedestrian crossing crossing
Push button signal Signal, direct ramps, protected activation, diagonal ramps, Increased visibility to drivers bike lane leading to intersection striped crosswalks except and awareness of people 58th Street High (4) on westbound approach, Low (1) north leg, one yield- walking or biking, slower protected intersection treatment control channelized right vehicle turning speeds on eastbound approach turn
Signal, striped bike lane leading to Push button signal Increased visibility to drivers University Square intersection on westbound activation, diagonal ramps, High (3) and awareness of people Low (1) Driveway approach, protected bike lane on striped crosswalks biking eastbound approach
Push button signal activation, diagonal ramps, Signal, protected bike lanes Increased visibility to drivers 60th Street striped crosswalks, striped High (3) leading to intersection on both and awareness of people Low (1) College Avenue bike lane leading to sides biking intersection on one side
41
58 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 9 INTERSECTION APPROACH LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Existing Without Project Existing With Project Cross Street(s) Crossing Treatment Traffic Stress Crossing Treatment Potential Safety Benefits Traffic Stress
Side street stop, striped bike lane Increased visibility to drivers Side street stop only, leading to intersection on both Bonillo Drive Low (1) and awareness of people Low (1) diagonal ramps sides, enhanced pedestrian walking or biking crossing such as an RRFB west leg
Push button signal Signal, protected bike lanes Increased visibility to drivers Rolando Boulevard activation, diagonal ramps, Low (1) leading to intersection on both and awareness of people Low (1) striped crosswalks sides biking
Signal, striped bike lane leading to Push button signal Increased visibility to drivers intersection on westbound Aragon Drive activation, diagonal ramps, Low (1) and awareness of people Low (1) approach, protected bike lane on striped crosswalks biking eastbound approach
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 * LTS methodology does not specify roadway merging conditions, but engineering judgement can be used to categorize this intersection as very high stress for people who bike. ** The project closes access to and from Chollas Parkway such that LTS at this point is governed by segment-level thresholds rather than intersection thresholds.
42
59 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The Existing Conditions with the Project scenario examines how implementation of the proposed project will affect vehicle traffic conditions along roadway segments and at intersections in the project area. The results of the roadway capacity and intersection capacity analyses are provided below.
Proposed Changes to Roadway Segment and Intersection Capacity
Intersection operations for Existing Conditions assume all of the current lane configurations and traffic control devices in place. For Existing With Project Conditions, removal of the through lanes along the majority of the project corridor will reduce the street capacity. This reconfiguration of University Avenue is not identified in the Mid-City Community Plan from August 1998, although in proposing a Class II bikeway, it is consistent with the plan to provide an enhanced bicycle facility. The network assumptions would be modified as follows:
One eastbound lane would be removed from the following intersections: o Estrella Avenue & University Avenue o Winona Avenue & University Avenue o 50th Street & University Avenue o 58th Street & University Avenue
One westbound lane would be removed from the following intersections: o College Avenue & University Avenue
One eastbound lane and one westbound lane would be removed from the following intersections: o 52nd Street & University Avenue o Shiloh Road & University Avenue o Cartagena Drive & University Avenue o Bonillo Drive & University Avenue o Rolando Boulevard & University Avenue o Aragon Drive & University Avenue o Alamo Drive & University Avenue o Salvation Driveway & University Avenue o 68th Street & University Avenue o 69th Street & University Avenue
Other project features are expected to include turn restrictions via medians or signage, removal of high speed right turn lanes, addition of bike boxes, bike signals, and other walking and biking facility enhancements.
43
60 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Roadway Capacity Analysis
Table 10 shows the results for the roadway segment analysis. The analysis assumes optimization of signal timings and splits (i.e., the amount of time allocated to each approach) to some intersections as part of the project implementation. As shown in that table, the removal of travel lanes with the project causes the LOS on six segments of University Avenue to decrease to LOS F:
1) between Euclid Avenue and Winona 9) between College Avenue and Rolando Avenue Boulevard 2) between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street 10) between Rolando Boulevard and Aragon Drive 3) between 52nd Street and 54th Street 12) between Salvation Driveway and 70th Street
As a result, these six roadway segments were subject to additional evaluation in Part 2 of the roadway segment analysis, to determine if the traffic conditions for these segments will meet the City of San Diego standards. The other roadway segments would meet the standards provided in Part 1 of the segment analysis with implementation of the proposed project, so no further evaluation of these segments is required. Table 11 shows the results for Part 2 of the roadway segments analysis. The arterial analysis LOS summary tables and calculation sheets for the corresponding roadway segments are included in Appendix F.
For the segment of University Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Winona Avenue, Table 11 shows: The Winona Avenue intersection at the east end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. The project does not make changes at Euclid Avenue and no change in operation is anticipated. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 3-lane collector with a center left-turn lane to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet the City of San Diego Standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 3 to 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid- City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet to City of San Diego standards.
44
61 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 10 PART 1: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT Roadway Segment Existing Without Project Existing With Project Roadway Classification Roadway Classification ID University Avenue To/From ADT V/C2 LOS3,4 ADT V/C2 LOS3,4 ∆ V/C (# of Lanes)1 (# of Lanes)1 1 Euclid Ave Winona Ave 4C/3C w/CLTL 20,276 0.90 E 4C/2C w/CLTL 20,276 1.35 F 0.45
2 Winona Ave 52nd St 3/4M 20,246 0.67 C 2M 20,246 1.01 F 0.34
3 52nd St 54th St 4M 21,583 0.54 C 2M 21,583 1.08 F 0.54
4 54th St Chollas Pkwy 4M 22,989 0.57 C 4M 22,989 0.57 C 0.00
5 Chollas Pkwy 58th St 4M 29,080 0.73 C 4M 29,080 0.73 D 0.00 University Square 6 58th St 5M 21,328 0.43 B 4M 21,328 0.53 C 0.10 Dwy University Square 7 60th St 5M 23,838 0.48 B 4M 23,838 0.60 C 0.12 Dwy 8 60th St College Ave 4/5M 22,014 0.55 C 4M 22,014 0.55 C 0.00
9 College Ave Rolando Blvd 4M 20,250 0.51 B 2C w/CLTL 20,250 1.35 F 0.84
10 Rolando Blvd Aragon Dr 4M 21,645 0.54 C 2C w/CLTL 21,645 1.44 F 0.90
11 Aragon Dr Salvation Dwy 4M 17,411 0.44 B 2M 17,411 0.87 D 0.43
12 Salvation Dwy 70th St/Lois St 4M 19,910 0.50 B 2M 19,910 1.00 E 0.50 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 2C w/CLTL = 2-lane collector with center left-turn lane 3C w/CLTL = 3-lane collector (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction) with center left-turn lane; capacity is assumed to be 150% of 2C w/CLTL capacity 4C = 4-lane collector 2M = 2-lane major arterial (1 lane in each direction with a raised median and left turn pockets); capacity is assumed to be 50% of 4M capacity 3M = 3-lane major arterial (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 75% of 4M capacity 4M = 4-lane major arterial 5M = 5-lane major arterial (3 lanes in one direction and 2 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 125% of 4M capacity 2 Volume-to-capacity ratio. Worst-case is shown on segments with multiple classifications 3 LOS calculations performed using City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) 4 Below-standard ADT volumes per segment and LOS highlighted in bold.
45
62 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 11 PART 2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ARTERIAL ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING WITH PROJECT Peak Hour Speed-Based Change in Vehicle Study Segments Consistent Performance Travel Time (sec)1 Peak Hour Intersection with Direction Meets Meets LOS AM Peak PM Peak Community ID University Avenue To/From Criterion in Criterion Hour Hour Plan? AM? in PM? Winona Avenue meets the EB Yes Yes +1.0 +7.5 City standard in AM and PM 1 Euclid Ave Winona Ave No (LOS D or better). Euclid Ave WB Yes Yes - - is outside of the study area. Meets the City standard in EB Yes Yes +2.9 +10.1 AM and PM for both 2 Winona Ave 52nd St No intersections (LOS D or WB Yes Yes -0.3 +0.4 better). 52nd St meets the City EB Yes Yes +5.4 +1.3 standard in AM and PM (LOS 3 52nd St 54th St D or better). 54th St does No not meet the City standard WB Yes Yes +6.1 +5.8 in AM or PM (LOS E). Rolando Blvd meets the City standard in AM and PM (LOS EB Yes Yes +2.9 +12.2 D or better). College Ave 9 College Ave Rolando Blvd No does not meet the City standard in AM or PM WB Yes Yes -1.4 +5.8 (LOS E). Meets the City standard in EB Yes Yes +5.5 +3.5 AM and PM for both 10 Rolando Blvd Aragon Dr No intersections (LOS D or WB Yes Yes +6.3 +8.6 better). Meets the City standard in EB Yes Yes +0.7 +1.2 AM and PM for both 12 Salvation Dwy 70th St/Lois St No intersections (LOS D or WB Yes Yes +1.2 +0.1 better). Source: Appendix F (Synchro 9.0 Arterial Analysis)
1. Existing With Project Travel Time minus Existing Without Project Travel Time
46
63 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
For the segment of University Avenue between 52nd Street and 54th Street, the table shows: The 52nd Street intersection will operate at LOS D or better, but the 54th Street intersection will operate below the City standard. The arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego threshold. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between College Avenue and Rolando Boulevard, the table shows: The Rolando Boulevard intersection will operate at LOS D or better, but the College Avenue intersection will operate below the City standard. The arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along these segments do not meet City of San Diego standards.
Finally, for the segment of University Avenue between Rolando Boulevard and Aragon Drive, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet to City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between Salvation Driveway and 70th Street, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan.
47
64 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along these segments do not meet City of San Diego standards.
Intersection Analysis
The results of the operations analysis of Existing Without and With Project Conditions are presented in Table 12. The analysis assumes optimization of signal timings and splits (i.e., the amount of time allocated to each approach) to some intersections as part of the project implementation. Appendix D includes the corresponding LOS worksheets for all study scenarios.
As shown in Table 12, two intersections will not meet the City’s minimum operating standard after implementation of the proposed project:
7) 54th Street & University Avenue (AM & PM only) 11) College Avenue & University Avenue (AM & PM)
Improving the level of service to meet the City standard at these intersections would require maintaining additional travel lanes or modifying the signal phasing to allow right turns on red. Neither of these are feasible while maintaining bicycle comfort and safety.
Vehicle Queuing
Because the project prohibits right turns on red on several approaches, a review of vehicle queueing was also conducted at those intersections. Appendix G includes a list of the projected queues under Existing Without and With Project Conditions, as well as the queueing worksheets.
At multiple locations, the 95th percentile queues would extend beyond the storage capacity. Queues are expected to be as long as the 95th percentile estimates very rarely, and the average (50th percentile) queues are accommodated by the storage lanes. Further reducing queues would require additional turn lanes or modification of the signal phasing to increase the green time provided to turning vehicles. Neither of these are feasible while maintaining bicycle comfort and safety.
48
65 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 12 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS FOR EXISTING WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
Existing Without Existing With Peak Traffic Project Conditions Project Conditions Delay Intersection Hour Control Change Delay Delay LOS2,3 LOS2,3 (sec/veh)1 (sec/veh)1 AM 7.6 A 7.6 A 0.0 1. Estrella Ave & Polk Ave AWSC PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 0.0
AM 59.4 F 46.1 E -13.3 2. Estrella Ave & University SSSC Ave PM 65.7 F 54.3 F -11.4
AM 20.6 C 17.8 B -2.8 3. Winona Ave & University Signalized Ave PM 19.5 B 17.6 B -1.9
AM 15.9 C 15.9 C 0.0 4. 50th St & University Ave SSSC PM 17.0 C 21.9 C 4.9
AM 21.9 C 28.7 C 6.8 5. 52nd St & University Ave Signalized PM 17.7 B 18.2 B 0.5
AM 39.2 E 16.6 C -22.6 6. Shiloh Rd/Dwy & University SSSC Ave PM 50.7 F 19.6 C -31.1
AM 39.9 D 73.1 E 33.2 7. 54th St & University Ave* Signalized PM 51.8 D 77.7 E 25.9
AM 23.2 C 27.8 C 4.6 8. 58th Street & University Signalized Ave* PM 21.1 C 29.1 C 8.0
AM 8.0 A 11.3 B 3.3 9. University Square Dwy & Signalized University Ave* PM 12.4 B 16.4 B 4.0
AM 11.2 B 13.2 B 2.0 10. 60th St & University Ave* Signalized PM 16.0 B 19.2 B 3.2
AM 40.4 D 61.9 E 21.5 11. College Ave & University Signalized Ave* PM 40.5 D 65.0 E 24.5
AM 19.7 C 16.1 C -3.6 12. Cartagena Dr & University SSSC Ave PM 43.2 E 21.0 C -22.2
AM 22.5 C 15.1 C -7.4 13. Bonillo Dr & University SSSC Ave PM 37.6 E 19.8 C -17.8
AM 13.4 B 23.1 C 9.7 14. Rolando Blvd & University Signalized Ave* PM 12.0 B 34.4 C 22.4
49
66 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
AM 11.7 B 15.0 B 3.3 15. Aragon Dr & University Signalized Ave* PM 10.3 B 17.5 B 7.2
AM 12.6 B 15.4 C 2.8 16. University Ave & Alamo Dr SSSC PM 16.2 C 20.5 C 4.3
AM 6.5 A 7.6 A 1.1 17. Salvation Driveway & Signalized University Ave* PM 10.4 B 13.5 B 3.1
AM 13.1 B 15.2 C 2.1 18. University Ave & 68th St SSSC PM 14.5 B 18.2 C 3.7
AM 14.2 B 15.9 C 1.7 19. 69th St & University Ave SSSC PM 18.3 C 21.0 C 2.7
AM 37.8 D 37.4 D -0.4 20. Lois St/70th St & Signalized University Ave PM 30.0 C 28.7 C -1.3
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Worst movement delay reported for side-street-stop-controlled intersection 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. 3 Below-standard seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. * Existing or proposed signal phasing prevents the use of HCM 2010 at this intersection. The HCM 2000 method was applied instead.
50
67 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT
This chapter describes safety conditions for people who walk and bike as well as the vehicle traffic conditions (at roadway segments and intersections) under the Future Conditions Without the Project and Future Conditions With the Project scenarios.
4.1 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT (YEAR 2022)
This section describes existing conditions as of 2022 for intersections and roadway segments in the project corridor, including existing facilities and collision history for people who walk and bike, as well as vehicular traffic conditions including volumes, intersection turning movements, roadway classifications, and traffic control devices (e.g., traffic signals, stop signs).
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS
Without the proposed project, this study assumes that bicycle and pedestrian safety conditions in 2022 will remain substantially the same as the existing conditions described in Section 3.1.
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The Future Conditions without the Project scenario examines vehicle traffic conditions along roadways segments and at intersections in the project area in the future. The results of the roadway capacity and intersection capacity analyses are provided below.
Proposed Changes to Roadway Capacity
No roadway capacity changes are anticipated for the year 2022 without the proposed project. As such, the roadway network for the Future Without Project scenario is the same as the roadway network for the Existing Without Project scenario described in Section 3.1.
Proposed Changes to Intersection Capacity
No intersection capacity changes are anticipated for the year 2022 without the proposed project. As such, the intersection capacities for the Future Without Project scenario are the same as those analyzed in the Existing Without Project scenario described in Section 3.1.
51
68 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
4.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT (YEAR 2022)
Future With Project conditions represent the conditions of the roadways and intersections within the project area in the year 2022 if the proposed project were implemented.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS
The bicycle and pedestrian safety assessment for these travel modes is expected to be the same for the Future with Project condition as the Existing with Project condition (see Chapter 3 for this information). Safety for people who bike and walk is expected to be enhanced and the number and severity of collisions are expected to decline with the project in place. On parallel facilities, collisions could also be reduced in number and severity as people who bike shift to the University Bikeway instead of traveling on streets with higher vehicle speeds and volumes. As additional connections are constructed for people who walk and bike, more people will use the University Bikeway for non-motorized travel. Larger numbers of people walking and biking along the corridor will further increase the safety along the corridor as people driving develop an increased awareness of people walking or biking.
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The Future Conditions with the Project scenario examines how implementation of the proposed project would affect vehicle traffic conditions along roadways segments and at intersections in the project area. The results of the roadway capacity and intersection capacity analyses are provided below.
Proposed Changes to Roadway Segment and Intersection Capacity
No roadway capacity changes are anticipated for the year 2022 besides the changes proposed by the proposed project. Therefore, the Future With Project scenario analyzes the same roadway capacity changes as the Existing With Project scenario described in Section 3.1.
Roadway Capacity Analysis
Table 13 shows the results for the roadway segment analysis. As shown in that table, the removal of travel lanes with the project causes the LOS on seven segments of University Avenue to decrease to LOS E or F:
1) between Euclid Avenue and Winona Avenue 10) between Rolando Boulevard and Aragon 2) between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street Drive 3) between 52nd Street and 54th Street 11) between Aragon Drive and Salvation 9) between College Avenue and Rolando Driveway Boulevard 12) between Salvation Driveway and 70th Street
52
69 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 13 PART 1: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT Roadway Segment Future Without Project Future With Project Roadway Classification Roadway Classification ID University Avenue To/From ADT V/C2 LOS3,4 ADT V/C2 LOS3,4 ∆ V/C (# of Lanes)1 (# of Lanes)1 1 Euclid Ave Winona Ave 4C/3C w/CLTL 21,017 0.93 E 4C/2C w/CLTL 21,017 1.40 F 0.47
2 Winona Ave 52nd St 3/4M 20,987 0.70 C 2M 20,987 1.05 F 0.35
3 52nd St 54th St 4M 22,367 0.56 C 2M 22,367 1.12 F 0.56
4 54th St Chollas Pkwy 4M 23,830 0.60 C 4M 23,830 0.60 C 0.00
5 Chollas Pkwy 58th St 4M 30,152 0.75 D 4M 30,152 0.75 D 0.00 University Square 6 58th St 5M 22,108 0.44 B 4M 22,108 0.55 C 0.11 Dwy University Square 7 60th St 5M 24,722 0.49 B 4M 24,722 0.62 C 0.13 Dwy 8 60th St College Ave 4/5M 22,819 0.57 C 4M 22,819 0.57 C 0.00
9 College Ave Rolando Blvd 4M 21,545 0.54 C 2C w/CLTL 21,545 1.44 F 0.90
10 Rolando Blvd Aragon Dr 4M 23,084 0.58 C 2C w/CLTL 23,084 1.54 F 0.96
11 Aragon Dr Salvation Drwy 4M 18,569 0.46 B 2M 18,569 0.93 E 0.47
12 Salvation Dwy 70th St/Lois St 4M 21,233 0.53 C 2M 21,233 1.06 F 0.53 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 2C w/CLTL = 2-lane collector with center left-turn lane 3C w/CLTL = 3-lane collector (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction) with center left-turn lane; capacity is assumed to be 150% of 2C w/CLTL capacity 4C = 4-lane collector 2M = 2-lane major arterial (1 lane in each direction with a raised median and left turn pockets); capacity is assumed to be 50% of 4M capacity 3M = 3-lane major arterial (2 lanes in one direction and 1 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 75% of 4M capacity 4M = 4-lane major arterial 5M = 5-lane major arterial (3 lanes in one direction and 2 in opposing direction); capacity is assumed to be 125% of 4M capacity 2 Volume-to-capacity ratio. Worst-case is shown on segments with multiple classifications 3 LOS calculations performed using City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) 4 Below-standard ADT volumes per segment and LOS highlighted in bold.
53
70 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
As a result, these seven roadway segments were subject to additional evaluation in Part 2 of the roadway segment analysis, to determine if the traffic conditions for these segments will meet the City of San Diego standards. The other roadway segments will meet the standards provided in Part 1 of the segment analysis with implementation of the proposed project, so no further evaluation of these segments is required. Table 14 shows the results for Part 2 of the roadway segments analysis. The arterial analysis LOS summary tables and calculation sheets for the corresponding roadway segments are included in Appendix F.
For the segment of University Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Winona Avenue, Table 14 shows: The Winona Avenue intersection at the east end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. The project does not make changes at Euclid Avenue and no change in operation is anticipated. In addition, an arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. In the westbound direction, the project does not make substantial changes to the configuration and no change in operation is anticipated along the segment. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane collector and 3-lane collector with a center left-turn lane to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet the City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between Winona Avenue and 52nd Street, the table shows The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 3 to 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between 52nd Street and 54th Street, the table shows: The 52nd Street intersection will operate at LOS D or better, but the 54th Street intersection will operate below the City standard. The arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the LOS F intersection operations, as well as the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along these segments do not meet the City of San Diego standards.
54
71 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 14 PART 2: ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE WITH PROJECT Peak Hour Speed-Based Change in Vehicle Study Segments Consistent Performance Travel Time (sec)1 with Peak Hour Intersection LOS Direction Meets Meets AM Peak PM Peak Community ID University Avenue To/From Criterion in Criterion Hour Hour Plan? AM? in PM? Winona Avenue meets the City EB Yes Yes +1.4 +8.7 standard in AM and PM (LOS D 1 Euclid Ave Winona Ave No or better). Euclid Ave is outside WB Yes Yes - - of the study area. Meets the City standard in AM EB Yes Yes +3.4 +11.0 2 Winona Ave 52nd St and PM for both intersections No (LOS D or better) WB Yes Yes +0.6 -0.6 52nd St meets the City EB Yes Yes +2.8 -0.4 standard in AM and PM (LOS D 3 52nd St 54th St or better). 54th St does not No meet the City standard in AM WB Yes Yes +6.8 +6.6 or PM (LOS F). Rolando Blvd meets the City EB Yes Yes +4.0 +16.1 standard in AM and PM (LOS D 9 College Ave Rolando Blvd or better). College Ave does No not meet the City standard in WB Yes Yes -1.3 +3.9 AM or PM (LOS E). Meets the City standard in AM Rolando EB Yes Yes +6.5 +5.6 10 Aragon Dr and PM for both intersections No Blvd (LOS D or better). WB Yes Yes +7.7 +9.2 Meets the City standard in AM EB Yes Yes +1.1 +2.5 11 Aragon Dr Salvation Dwy and PM for both intersections No (LOS D or better) WB Yes Yes +4.7 +2.8 Meets the City standard in AM Salvation 70th St/Lois EB Yes Yes -0.8 -1.4 12 and PM for both intersections No Dwy St (LOS D or better) WB Yes Yes +1.3 +0.3 Source: Appendix F (Synchro 9.0 Arterial Analysis)
1. Future With Project Travel Time minus Future Without Project Travel Time
55
72 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
For the segments of University Avenue between College Avenue and Rolando Boulevard, the table shows: The Rolando Boulevard intersection will operate at LOS D or better, but the College Avenue intersection will operate below the City standard. The arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the LOS E intersection operations, as well as the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along these segments do not meet the City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between Rolando Boulevard and Aragon Drive, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane collector with a center left-turn lane is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet to City of San Diego standards.
For the segment of University Avenue between Aragon Drive and Salvation Driveway, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. In addition, the arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion.. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet to City of San Diego standards.
Finally, for the segment of University Avenue between Salvation Driveway and 70th Street, the table shows: The intersections at either end of this segment will operate at LOS D or better. The arterial analysis shows that the segment meets the City of San Diego criterion. However, the proposal to reconfigure the roadway from a 4-lane major arterial to a 2-lane major arterial is inconsistent with the 4-lane major arterial configuration in the (1998) adopted Mid-City Communities Plan. Because of the inconsistency with the adopted Community Plan, the traffic conditions along this segment do not meet to City of San Diego standards.
56
73 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Intersection Analysis
The results of the operations analysis of Future Without and With Project conditions are presented in Table 15. Appendix D includes the corresponding LOS worksheets for all study scenarios.
As shown in Table 15, two intersections will not meet the City’s minimum operating standard after implementation of the proposed project:
7) 54th Street & University Avenue (AM & PM) 11) College Avenue & University Avenue (AM & PM)
Improving the level of service to meet the City standard at these intersections would require maintaining additional travel lanes or modifying the signal phasing to allow right turns on red. Neither of these are feasible while maintaining bicycle comfort and safety.
57
74 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 15 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS FOR FUTURE WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
Future Without Future With Peak Traffic Project Conditions Project Conditions Delay Intersection Hour Control Change Delay Delay LOS2,3 LOS2,3 (sec/veh)1 (sec/veh)1 AM 7.7 A 7.7 A 0.0 1. Estrella Ave & Polk Ave AWSC PM 7.6 A 7.6 A 0.0
AM >100.0 F 78.1 F -47.6 2. Estrella Ave & University SSSC Ave PM >100.0 F >100.0 F -66.6
AM 21.6 C 18.3 B -3.3 3. Winona Ave & University Signalized Ave PM 21.6 C 22.2 C 0.6
AM 16.8 C 16.8 C 0.0 4. 50th St & University Ave SSSC PM 18.0 C 23.0 C 5.0
AM 22.8 C 31.2 C 8.4 5. 52nd St & University Ave Signalized PM 18.9 B 20.2 C 1.3
AM 62.0 F 17.4 C -44.6 6. Shiloh Rd/Dwy & University SSSC Ave PM 90.9 F 21.2 C -69.7
AM 42.7 D 82.0 F 39.3 7. 54th St & University Ave* Signalized PM 55.6 E 84.9 F 29.3
AM 25.1 C 29.9 C 4.8 8. 58th Street & University Signalized Ave* PM 36.6 D 31.9 C -4.7
AM 8.0 A 10.0 A 2.0 9. University Square Dwy & Signalized University Ave* PM 12.9 B 37.2 D 24.3
AM 13.5 B 15.3 B 1.8 10. 60th St & University Ave Signalized PM 17.5 B 20.8 C 3.3
AM 45.9 D 70.9 E 25.0 11. College Ave & University Signalized Ave PM 44.1 D 74.2 E 30.1
AM 37.2 E 17.5 C -19.7 12. Cartagena Dr & University SSSC Ave PM 76.3 F 15.2 C -61.1
AM 31.0 D 16.8 C -14.2 13. Bonillo Dr & University SSSC Ave PM 51.3 F 24.2 C -27.1
AM 15.2 B 35.0 C 19.8 14. Rolando Blvd & University Signalized Ave PM 14.1 B 49.5 D 35.4
58
75 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
TABLE 15 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS FOR FUTURE WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT
Future Without Future With Peak Traffic Project Conditions Project Conditions Delay Intersection Hour Control Change Delay Delay LOS2,3 LOS2,3 (sec/veh)1 (sec/veh)1 AM 12.7 B 16.7 B 4.0 15. Aragon Dr & University Signalized Ave* PM 11.8 B 14.6 B 2.8
AM 13.6 B 17.1 C 3.5 16. University Ave & Alamo Dr SSSC PM 17.5 C 23.0 C 5.5
AM 6.8 A 8.0 A 1.2 17. Salvation Driveway & Signalized University Ave* PM 10.7 B 14.6 B 3.9
AM 13.2 B 15.9 C 2.7 18. University Ave & 68th St SSSC PM 16.0 C 20.3 C 4.3
AM 15.6 C 18.0 C 2.4 19. 69th St & University Ave SSSC PM 20.8 C 24.6 C 3.8
AM 43.1 D 45.2 D 2.1 20. Lois St/70th St & Signalized University Ave PM 34.2 C 33.6 C -0.6
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Worst movement delay reported for side-street-stop-controlled intersection 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. 3 Below-standard seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. * Existing or proposed signal phasing events the use of HCM 2010 at this intersection. The HCM 2000 method was applied instead.
59
76 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
5.0 REFERENCES
American Planning Association 2009 U.S Traffic Calming Manual. Available at: https://www.planning.org/publications/book/9026718/ Accessed February 26th, 2018.
Circulate San Diego 2015 Vision Zero San Diego. Available at: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/circulatesd/pages/ 87/attachments/original/1436894335/Vision_Zero_Final_Updated_7.13.15_Reduced_size.pdf?1436 894335. Accessed March 13th, 2018.
City of San Diego 1998 Traffic Impact Study Manual. Available at: http://www.sandiego.gov/developmentservices/ pdf/industry/trafficimpact.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
1998 Mid-City Communities Plan. Available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/ planning/community/profiles/pdf/cp/cpmcfull.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2006 City of San Diego Traffic Calming. Available at: http://www.miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/ Plangrp/DAR/Traffic%20Calming%20Program%20Handbook%20-%20City %20of%20San%20Diego.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2011 Significance Determination Thresholds. Available at: http://www.sandiego.gov/development- services/pdf/news/sdtceqa.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2013 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan. Available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/planning/programs/transportation/mobility/pdf/bicycle_master_plan_final_dec_2013.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2015 City of San Diego Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ files/final_july_2016_cap.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
Florida Department of Transportation 2014 Statewide Lane Elimination Guidance. Available at: http://www.fdot.gov/roadway/csi/Files/Lane- Elimination-Guide-Part2.pdf. Accessed March 13th, 2018.
Mineta Transportation Institute 2012 Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Available at: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/ research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2010 Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bike Plan. May. Available at: http://www.sandag.org/ uploads/projectid/projectid_353_10862.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
60
77 North Park | Mid-City Bikeways Project: University Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (April 23, 2018)
Referenced as in above:
2012 Buehler, R., and J. Pucher. “Cycling to Work in 90 Large American Cities: New Evidence on the Role of Bike Paths and Lanes.” Transportation 39: 409. doi:10.1007/s11116-011- 9355-8.
2015 Federal Highway Administration, Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide.
2005 Geller, Roger. “Four Types of Cyclists.” Tech. Portland, OR: Portland Bureau of Transportation.
2014 Monsere, Christopher, Jennifer Dill, Nathan McNeil, Kelly J. Clifton, Nick Foster, Tara Goddard, Mathew Berkow, Joe Gilpin, Kim Voros, Drusilla van Hengel, and Jamie Parks. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. NITC-RR-583. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC).
2010 Climate Action Strategy. Available at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/ publicationid_1481_10940.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2012 Series 13: Transportation Forecast Information Center. Available at: http://www.sandag.org/ index.asp?projectid=355&fuseaction=projects.detail. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2013 Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (EAP). Available at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads /meetingid/meetingid_3488_16569.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Available at: http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/Final_PDFs/ The_Plan_combined.pdf. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 2014 Automated Speed Enforcement. Available at: https://www.sfmta.com/ projects-planning/projects/automated-speed-enforcement. Accessed February 26th, 2018.
61
78 Attachment 4
Responses to Comments on the University Bikeway
SANDAG held an open house and public hearing for the University Bikeway (proposed project) on May 16, 2018, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Joan Kroc Center. On May 1, 2018, SANDAG published a notice of the open house and public hearing and made available online the proposed project’s Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment.
A total of 18 individuals or organizations provided comments on the proposed project. Comments provided in writing and verbally at the open house and public hearing on May 16, 2018, and submitted to staff via email between May 1 and June 15, 2017, are shown in Table 1. Table 1 provides a list of all comments received, including the name of each individual or organization that submitted a comment, the date of the comment, and how the comment was submitted (i.e., written, verbal, email). All written and transcribed verbal comments are included as Appendix A.
Table 1 List of Comments on the University Bikeway
Public Public Individual or Organization Comment Date Hearing- Hearing- Email Written Verbal
No-name #1 5/16/2018 X
Jeff Kucharski 5/16/2018 X
Robin Rivet 5/16/2018 X X
Wendy Miller 5/16/2018 X
Joe Felix 5/16/2018 X X
No-name #2 5/16/2018 X
Jim Baross 5/16/2018 X X
Mario Ingrasci 5/16/2018 X X
Christopher Vallejo 5/16/2018 X
David Bowen 5/16/2018 X
Anastasia Brewster 5/16/2018 X
Vianney Ruvalcaba 5/16/2018 X
Mike Hancock 5/16/2018 X
Maria Cortez 5/16/2018 X
Randy Van Vleck 5/16/2018 X
79 Public Public Individual or Organization Comment Date Hearing- Hearing- Email Written Verbal
Eva Luna 5/16/2018 X
Esperanza González 5/16/2018 X
Lynn Edwards 5/21 – 6/1/2018 X
In general, commenters expressed support for the project. The majority of commenters (13 of 18) said they support the project and its safety-enhancing features. Several mentioned appreciation for particular project features: protected bikeways, protected intersections, the closing of Chollas Parkway, dedicated bike signal phases, parking removal (if needed for bike safety), green paint in conflict areas, and “no right turn on red” restrictions.
Some commenters expressed concerns about the project. Many of the concerns expressed fall into common themes. Staff has organized the comments according to these common themes, listed below, and provided a written master response to each:
• Master Response 1: Efforts and Improvements Beyond Project Scope • Master Response 2: Project Location and Design • Master Response 3: Vehicle Congestion and Access • Master Response 4: Maintenance of Protected Bikeways
Master Response 1: Improvements and Efforts Beyond Project Scope
A few commenters requested efforts and improvements beyond the scope of the project. Such efforts and improvements include a comprehensive corridor study, a comprehensive greening and forestry plan for the corridor, the rezoning of the corridor, comprehensive pedestrian improvements, traffic calming improvements on Aragon Drive and a pilot project for the eastern reach of the project (University Avenue, from College Avenue to 70th Street).
Response
All aforementioned efforts and improvements are beyond the scope of this bikeway project. During final design SANDAG will evaluate opportunities to add landscaping throughout the corridor. Any landscape improvements, like all project improvements, will be subject to City of San Diego Development Services Department (DSD) review and approval.
80 Master Response 2: Project Location and Design
Some commenters made suggestions regarding the project location and design. One commenter suggested the project be located elsewhere, not on University Avenue. Other comments related to concerns about protected bikeway infrastructure (and preference for “shared infrastructure”), right turn restrictions for northbound Aragon Drive, special treatment at University Avenue and 69th Street, vehicle speeds at University Avenue and 54th Street, cut-through traffic on Aragon Drive, and clear vehicle lane striping. Lastly, one comment suggested the reconfiguration of a center median to make more efficient use of the right of way. Responses to each comment are provided under separate headers below.
Response
Project Location
The location of the project – along University Avenue, from Estrella Avenue to 70th Street – is the product of significant outreach and stakeholder input. The original project alignment meandered through the hilly neighborhoods north of University Avenue, but this route was rejected by the community because of its circuitous nature, steep grades, and lack of access to community destinations.
Protected Bikeway Infrastructure (and Preference for “Shared Infrastructure”)
Protected bikeway infrastructure, including protected bikeways and protected intersections, is a product of stakeholder input and best practices in bikeway design. The majority of comments received at March 1st Community Workshop requested the inclusion of more – and more robust – physical barriers along the corridor and at intersections, not fewer. The addition of shared lane markings (“sharrows”) on a high-speed street like University Avenue (speeds in excess of 35 mph) is not consistent with best practices in bikeway design and is explicitly discouraged by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Section 9C.07 02, Federal Highway Administration, 2009).
Right Turn Restrictions for NB Aragon Drive
This project does not propose a right turn on red prohibition on the southeast corner of University Avenue and Aragon Drive because conflicts between people riding bikes through the intersection and those turning right onto University Avenue are expected to be minimal. This is due to relatively clear sightlines and low vehicle volumes (traffic on northbound Aragon is approximately 1,100 vehicles per day on average).
Special Treatment at University Avenue and 69th Street
Treatments at the intersection of University Avenue and 69th Street will be limited to bikeway conflict markings and a continental crosswalk. Further enhancements were not deemed appropriate given the nature of the intersection.
Increased Cut-through Traffic Along Aragon Drive
Based on knowledge of the project area, and the traffic and safety impact assessment prepared for the project, the University Bikeway is not expected to cause an increase of cut-through traffic along
81 Aragon Drive. Since the proposed bikeway project would affect the east/west routes, a direct connection between the project and potential north/south cut-through traffic is unlikely.
Lowering Vehicle Speeds at University Avenue and 54th Street
The proposed design for the intersection of University Avenue and 54th Street, which entails the removal of two free right “slip lanes” and the creation of a protected intersection for bikes, will substantially shrink the intersection. This smaller intersection is anticipated to encourage slower, safer speeds. It is unlikely that SANDAG will be able to change posted speed limits upon implementation of its project, but the City of San Diego may decide to lower speed limits after implementation – to reflect lower prevailing speeds.
Clear Vehicle Lane Striping
The limits of work for this project will be further defined in final design. The project will include re- striping of vehicle lanes, subject to City of San Diego DSD review and approval, wherever appropriate to safely delineate travel ways.
Reconfiguration of Center Median
The extent to which the project will reconfigure existing hardscape improvements will be determined during final design.
Master Response 3: Vehicle Congestion and Access
Several commenters expressed concern about traffic congestion that may result from the road diet (removal of travel lanes) and other changes – needed to accommodate the proposed bikeway project. Locations of concern include the intersection of University Avenue and 54th Street (due to the closing of Chollas Parkway), the segment between College Avenue and 70th Street, and the entire University Avenue corridor. A couple of commenters expressed concern over the prohibition of a U-turn on SB 54th Street at University Avenue, citing potential access impacts to businesses and residences.
Response
Vehicle Congestion
A Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment (TSIA) for the project was produced and posted to the project website on May 1, 2018. The TSIA found that two street segments and two intersections will not meet City of San Diego standards with the implementation of the project:
Segment:
• University Avenue, from 52nd Street to 54th Street • University Avenue, from College Avenue to Rolando Boulevard
Intersection:
• University Avenue and 54th Street • University Avenue and College Avenue
Specific project changes – required to meet standards for street segment and intersection operations – would include (a) the maintenance of existing, permissive right turns at the intersections of
82 University Avenue and 54th Street, and University Avenue and College Avenue, and (b) the elimination of protected bicycle crossings at those same intersections. While the proposed project offers physical and signal phase protection for people crossing by bike, the changed project would require people riding bikes to merge with high speed vehicle traffic. Project changes necessary to meet City standards would compromise bicycle safety and would conflict with the project goals (e.g., “to create more opportunities to walk and bike in a low-stress environment”).
Vehicle Access
A U-turn prohibition on SB 54th Street at University Avenue is not proposed by the project and was not studied in the Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment.
Master Response 4: Maintenance of Protected Bikeways
One commenter expressed concern about the maintenance of protected bikeways, which – because of vertical barriers – tend to trap dirt and other debris.
Response
All protected bikeways will be designed wide enough to accommodate City of San Diego street sweepers. The level and frequency of maintenance will be determined by the City of San Diego.
83 Appendix A SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
PUBLIC HEARING: UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
MAY 16, 2018
HELD AT: JOAN KROC COMMUNITY CENTER
BY: SANDAG
Transcribed by: Rosalie A. Kramm, CA CSR No. 5469
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 84 Page: 1 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 MAY 16, 2018 WEDNESDAY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 2 WILLIAM SANDKE: Good evening. Thank you very 3 much for attending tonight's open house, the public 4 hearing for the University Bikeway Project. 5 My name is Bill Sandke. I serve as the Vice 6 Chair of the SANDAG Transportation Committee, which is 7 where your comments will next appear in front of a public 8 forum several weeks away, I think it's June 12th is when 9 we'll hear this item. 10 The intent of the evening is to hold a public 11 hearing to provide community members the opportunity to 12 comment on the project. You have had the chance to talk 13 to a lot of the project planners and consultants and 14 asked specific questions. We hope you got all those 15 answered. 16 Staff received constructive feedback at our 17 March 1st Community Workshop, and many of those elements 18 were incorporated into the plan. 19 The Staff's review of the project indicates 20 that it may qualify as exempt from the next level of a 21 CEQA study, so tonight's hearing is actually a CEQA 22 process, but there is another level of CEQA that we would 23 hope to be able to save money on the project by not 24 doing, and we are hoping we can make that determination 25 at our June 12th meeting.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 85 Page: 2 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 Holding this hearing and also preparing the 2 Traffic Safety Impact Assessment, all 65 pages of it, 3 which you can have for light bedtime reading, I spent 4 some time with it myself, it is quite complete and has 5 interesting discussions about the elements that are not 6 bicycle related to this project, including pedestrian 7 improvements, traffic intersection, safety elements, and 8 interesting things we would like to implement in our 9 town, Coronado, a Hawk signal, which is a 10 pedestrian-activated way to cross mid-block safely. 11 So I was very impressed with the technical 12 level of the study. I'm very impressed with the scope of 13 this project. It is almost $5 million, and it is not 14 quite three miles. So it is a very exciting part of the 15 Regional Bikeway Program, and we're glad you're here to 16 be a part of it tonight. 17 The Transportation Committee does anticipate 18 hearing this at its June 15th meeting. If you are 19 interested in providing spoken comments tonight, you have 20 submitted your speaker card, I hope, you can still do 21 that, just do it quickly, and I'll call you to the 22 microphone. 23 When you are called to speak, be sure and state 24 your name clearly so that our court reporter Rosalie has 25 a chance to get that right. If you want some translation
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 86 Page: 3 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 in Spanish, we have a translator in the back who can 2 provide you with an earpiece. 3 There is a digital timer on the table that will 4 remind you when three minutes is up, it will light up 5 red; and it will -- at two minutes it will light up 6 yellow. So keep your comments to three minutes, and if 7 you get towards -- to the north side of three minutes, 8 I'll ask you to summarize. We certainly want to hear 9 what you have to say, but we want to respect everybody's 10 time here tonight, too. 11 If you prefer to provide written comments, you 12 can do so on the table over there, and the written and 13 spoken comments collected in tonight's open house, and at 14 tonight's public hearing which we are about to convene, 15 as well as written responses to those comments, will be 16 provided to the Transportation Committee for 17 consideration before it considers approving the next 18 portion of the project. 19 If you have any questions how the public 20 hearing will work, please review the printed program or 21 speak to the project team who are much smarter than me 22 and get more information from them. 23 All right. Let's get started. I'll call our 24 first speaker. 25 Our first speaker is Christopher Vallejo.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 87 Page: 4 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 CHRISTOPHER VALLEJO: Hi everybody. My name is 2 Christopher Vallejo. I'm with the Office of 3 Councilmember Gomez representing the City of San Diego's 4 Ninth Council District. 5 I just want to take a moment to thank the 6 SANDAG Staff for having this robust conversation. I know 7 the Councilmember and our staff were excited to see we 8 are getting such a thorough project coming into the 9 neighborhoods. I cover the Rolando neighborhoods, and I 10 know that a lot of our folks are excited to see that we 11 are getting attention that is much needed, and so I just 12 wanted to thank SANDAG Staff for keeping the dialogue 13 open between the community and yourselves. 14 So thank you all. 15 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you, Christopher. I 16 know Councilmember Gomez is an important part of our 17 community, and we're glad to have you here tonight keep 18 an eye on things. 19 David Bowen. 20 DAVID BOWEN: Hello. My name is David Bowen. 21 This concept is good, but where they want to put it is 22 one of the most busiest areas on University, and they are 23 taking away a lane of traffic in some places and parking 24 in other places. You know, we're not a city that really 25 needs bike lanes. You know, I -- I am riding -- I go all
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 88 Page: 5 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 over the city on buses and all or driving. I never see a 2 lot of people on bicycles, and when I do, they don't obey 3 the laws. They run red lights. They run stop signs. 4 They don't have helmets on. 5 You know, and I've been almost hit or -- almost 6 hit by bicyclists coming down out of in-between cars and 7 all or coming around the corner. 8 And, you know, it is a good concept, but not in 9 this area. 10 You know, if you were in Rancho Bernardo or 11 stuff like that, it would be all right, but, you know, 12 University needs to be repaved. We need to have more 13 lighting on it and stuff like that. 14 And, you know, I disagree with this idea, but 15 it -- it's a good idea, but not in this area. 16 Thank you. 17 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you, Mr. Bowen. 18 I would like to call up Anastasia Brewster, and 19 on deck is Robin Rivet. 20 ANASTASIA BREWSTER: Good afternoon. My name 21 is Anastasia Brewster. I'm here representing City 22 Heights Community Development Corporation. I'm also a 23 resident of the area, and I do bike and walk this 24 corridor with my family. 25 So first of all thank you so much for coming.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 89 Page: 6 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 It's so encouraging to see a room full of community 2 members coming out and giving their input on a really 3 important project. We have been working for the last 4 seven years with an advocacy group called The City 5 Heights Built Environment Team that works to make 6 movement and traffic in the community safe for all 7 people, no matter how they move, whether on foot, on 8 bike, or perhaps with some sort of assistance. 9 This project is such a long overdue improvement 10 to the University Avenue corridor, one of the most 11 dangerous roadways in our regional transportation system, 12 and one of the Vision Zero corridors in the city of San 13 Diego. 14 When I worked with the Somali neighborhood near 15 52nd Street, we've had workshops where every single 16 person in the room, 60-plus people have raised their hand 17 when asked, "Do you know someone who has been hit on 18 University Avenue?" Every single hand went up in the 19 room. 20 I work with local students at the Crawford High 21 School who traverse the 54th Street intersection at 22 University to get to school daily, literally dodging cars 23 that are moving on freeway style free right-hand turns. 24 This project will transform that intersection, 25 making it safe, making it a protected intersection
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 90 Page: 7 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 whether you're on a bike, on foot, or in a car. It will 2 really be safer for all of us. 3 I drive regularly through the area, too. I am 4 concerned about the trade-offs. The safety of my 5 neighbors and my own family is what's most paramount, so 6 that is being prioritized in this project. 7 So thank you for your time. Thank you so much 8 for coming out. 9 WILLIAM SANDKE: Robin Rivet and on deck Jim 10 Baross. 11 ROBIN RIVET: Thank you everyone, both the 12 people who put this on and the attendees today. My name 13 is actually for the record Robin Rivet. 14 I have been on the Community Force Advisory 15 Board for the City of San Diego for about eight or nine 16 years, and I currently serve on the City -- Sustainable 17 Environmental Commission for the City of La Mesa, and I 18 live just a few blocks from this area. 19 I hesitated to say whether I'm opposed or for 20 this concept, because I don't think it should be that 21 way. What my opinion is at this point is that having 22 worked on the Climate Action Plan for the City of 23 San Diego and the Urban Forestry Management Plan for the 24 City of San Diego, that these two items have not been 25 addressed in this bike plan, and so we're looking at
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 91 Page: 8 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 climate change, we're looking at why people should be 2 biking and should be walking and should be taking public 3 transit. We're not going to probably move the main 4 corridors from the bus part, and so we have to be 5 thinking of not only biking, but pedestrians, so 6 basically I think my concern with this entire plan as I 7 see it so far is that it is not a master plan for the 8 community. It is not looking at changing zoning. It is 9 not looking at changing green space. 10 We have to look more than just putting paint on 11 the street to make things safe and desirable for our 12 communities. 13 So I would ask that the people who are working 14 on this project look into actually what they can do to 15 make our community greener and much more desirable for 16 both bikers and walkers and bus takers and even people 17 who drive, because if there is more tree shade, lots more 18 canopy, people will drive slower, and that is a 19 statistical truth, because I'm also a certified arborist, 20 and this is one of my concerns. 21 So I would ask the people who are actually 22 doing this to look at the cap, the Urban Forestry 23 Management Plan, and create a cohesive future for our 24 communities. 25 Thank you.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 92 Page: 9 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you, Robin. I apologize 2 for getting your name wrong. 3 Jim, you are next, and then Vianney Ruvalcaba. 4 MR. BAROSS: Okay. Hi, my name is Jim Baross. 5 I represent the California Association of Bicycling 6 Organizations and myself and my family. I'm going to 7 speak only to the bicycling issues and the related -- I 8 don't know a lot about trees and other stuff, although 9 they are important. 10 I want to thank the elected officials at SANDAG 11 for coming up with the reasoning and the funding for this 12 kind of project, because I think all of these efforts are 13 going to make things safer and more convenient for people 14 who want to get out of their car and help with the 15 environmental problems that are associated, hopefully 16 making it safer, too. 17 But I have a list of details, because the devil 18 is in the details, you've heard. 19 So I'm going to run through several of these. 20 Where the Class 4 bikeways are next to narrow 21 travel lanes, I think it would be a good idea to add 22 sharrows to the travel lane. Bicyclists are not required 23 to ride in the Class 4 bikeways, and in many cases it is 24 faster and more convenient to use a travel lane, and to 25 preclude harassment and others, having sharrows in those
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 93 Page: 10 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 narrow lanes would be helpful. 2 When the bikeways are to the right of buses, I 3 think they are called bus pass something or other, in 4 several places, I think at -- let's see, 58th, Salvation 5 Parkway, the University Square, Rolando Boulevard and 6 58th, the bikeway is to the right of a bus stop, and I 7 think that is going to be hazardous for people getting on 8 and off the bus. 9 This gentleman might get run over by me, and I 10 don't want to do that. 11 When approaching an intersection like College 12 or 58th Avenue, I think it is a good idea to remove the 13 bollard sooner and add sharrows to the through travel 14 lane so bicyclists are not directed into the sidewalk. 15 I think it's a good idea to install green 16 pavement at the driveway crossings and small road 17 intersections, especially between 58th and 54th, to 18 keep -- make it aware to motorists that bicyclists will 19 be going straight through when they enter or exit the 20 driveways. 21 I think it is important to preclude the right 22 turn on red at the intersections where the bikeway is to 23 the right of the right turning vehicles. I understand 24 that traffic vehicles will provide a "no right turn on 25 red" opportunity, even a "no right turn on green," so the
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 94 Page: 11 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 bicyclists can get through to the right of right turning 2 vehicles. I don't think motorists are going to be 3 approaching that. 4 I hope we don't see door zoned bike lanes, bike 5 lanes where the doors may open into the space. 6 Lastly, I hope the City of San Diego comes 7 through with maintenance of these facilities, especially 8 those separated from the roadways. We probably are going 9 to have to get smaller street sweepers, because trash and 10 other stuff does collect in these spaces. 11 Thanks for the opportunity. 12 WILLIAM SANDKE: Vianney Ruvalcaba and next up 13 will be Mike Hancock. 14 VIANNEY RUVALCABA: Hi. My name is Vianney 15 Ruvalcaba, and I want to say first I'm very happy to see 16 that changes were implemented since the last workshop. 17 Also, I want to say that I am in favor of this project 18 overall. I live in the South Bay. I go to school in 19 La Jolla, and I work in City Heights. So this project is 20 super encouraging to me to see that our region is moving 21 in the right direction as far as multimodal 22 transportation. I don't want to use my car anymore. I 23 don't want to be stuck in traffic. 24 I really am excited to take transit and ride my 25 bike in a safe place, and this project has done an
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 95 Page: 12 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 excellent job in addressing safety concerns for me as a 2 bike rider, as a non-professional cyclist. 3 So I just wanted to express my support for the 4 project. Thank you. 5 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you very much. 6 Next up will be Maria Cortez after Mike 7 Hancock. 8 MIKE HANCOCK: Good evening, folks. My name is 9 Mike Hancock, and I've been a City Heights resident for 10 about 18 years, so I know the area really well. My -- 11 I'm here in support of the project. 12 There are certain details that I think we need 13 to look at a little closer to make sure enough safety is 14 provided. I think it is important to provide a system 15 that combines safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but 16 also keeps the traffic moving at a safe speed, but 17 doesn't create more congestion, more traffic congestion 18 at the same time. 19 I was talking to one of the Staff here that was 20 talking about syncing the signal lights. I think that is 21 a good idea to keep traffic moving slowly, but at least 22 to keep it moving so you don't just have vehicles sitting 23 at the intersections. 24 But my main focus is to do whatever we can to 25 decrease the number of injuries and fatalities to
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 96 Page: 13 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 pedestrians and cyclists. So I think that's something we 2 definitely want to keep in mind. 3 Thank you for your time. 4 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you, Mike. You have a 5 great voice. You should think about radio. 6 MARIA CORTEZ: Hi, my name is Maria Cortez, and 7 I've been a resident here in City Heights for 45 years. 8 I work with the City Heights Development Corporation and 9 also with BET, the Built Environment Team, and I would 10 like to say that you've come a long ways with this 11 concept. I'm in total agreement, yes, I agree, with -- 12 with what you guys are doing because this is wonderful. 13 It is the first step in the right direction. 14 I have a grandson that lives not too far from 15 here, and he is going to be taking public transportation 16 where he is going to be walking. He is going to be 17 taking the bus. He is going into high school, and this 18 is one way I would not have to worry about him. He lives 19 not too far from where Jonathan Cortez was killed. 20 I am in agreement with this, because it is 21 going to slow down the traffic, and I agree we should 22 synchronize the lights, because then those people that 23 are not taking the bus and riding bikes or walking are 24 going to be stuck in the traffic. 25 And I just want to say I give my full support,
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 97 Page: 14 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 and what you are doing is great. 2 There will be greenery. There will be some -- 3 some parkways where we will be able to walk and cross, 4 not in front of the traffic, but behind, and I just want 5 to say you guys are taking great strides to protect those 6 of us who do walk and do take the transportation, and I 7 fully am in total agreement with this. 8 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you very much, Mario, 9 and then there will be Joe. 10 MARIO INGRASCI: My name is Mario Ingrasci. I 11 live in the neighborhood. I'm on the Rolando Committee. 12 I also represent the Eastern Area Board, and I'm happy to 13 see -- I like the project overall, and it is good that we 14 have these bike lanes in here. It is too bad we couldn't 15 continue on Trojan or something else, where there is less 16 traffic, but due to topography and other issues, it just 17 didn't work. 18 I have a few issues with it. The main one is 19 on the road dive area is where there are people that come 20 down University to make left turns to get on the 21 Boulevard. I don't know what the traffic safety would 22 be, how much even -- how -- I don't know what it says, 23 but I don't want to be coming in the morning and get on 24 University and have a long single line of cars, and I can 25 never make a left turn out into the street. That is my
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 98 Page: 15 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 main concern in the morning. 2 Because right now it is two lanes, and a pack 3 of cars goes by, and then there is a big space, and a 4 pack of cars goes by. At certain times there will be a 5 long line of cars, that can be a minor issue, not 6 terrible, but -- and then where the skew is at Chollas 7 Parkway, you cannot close that skew off. It needs to be 8 a proper left-hand turn and be squared off and just use 9 the north side of Chollas Parkway to connect to Lea 10 Street. I've been proposing that to the City engineers 11 for five years now. We will put a park there eventually, 12 but that needs to be open because a lot of people use 13 that, and if you do close it off, the numbers at 54th 14 will get a lot worse. There will be a lot more cars 15 turning left and then more car movement at 54th and 16 University. So that helps relieve the pressure of 17 University. 18 But you definitely need to keep that open. 19 Just make it safe and make it a T-intersection, which 20 there is plenty of room to do. It would be very simple. 21 That would be easy. 22 It would be nice if there was more sidewalks 23 being put in here, but I understand that is not possible. 24 The other possibility to look at would be where 25 the Kroc Center is right here, this median is a very
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 99 Page: 16 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 nice, attractive median, but it was built too wide. If 2 you wanted to spend the money to narrow the median down, 3 you could get the -- at least on this block, get all the 4 lanes and the bike lane and the parking, but I don't know 5 if that's -- if that's an issue or not. 6 But anyway, thank you. 7 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you, Mario. 8 Joe? 9 JOSEPH FELIX: Yes. My name is Joe Felix. 10 Thank you SANDAG and everybody else for putting on this 11 forum to speak. I'm a property owner and small -- 12 independent small businessperson in the City Heights 13 area, and we have -- I guess our concern is making sure 14 there is an overall efficient design, and efficiency to 15 us is safety for all parties, whether it is pedestrian, 16 vehicles, bicyclists. So that is kind of what we're 17 looking at. 18 And our particular concern is 54th and 19 University. I think overall it looks pretty good. It 20 addresses a lot of those issues. 21 There are two items that in particular we would 22 like to throw out there. One is just bringing the speed 23 limit down. It is about 40 or 45 miles per hour in 24 various directions, and if there is a way to slow that 25 down, it would be -- I think it would make sense.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 100 Page: 17 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 The second thing is that we would want to 2 maintain a U-turn when you are southbound on 54th and you 3 approach University. So if you want to make a U-turn to 4 go back north, that is available for a vehicle. 5 And if there is not a U-turn there, I think 6 there will be a lot of problems with just creating 7 traffic on other parts of the area, of the community, the 8 intersection, whether it is south of University or east 9 or west of 54th on University. 10 So that's something that we are particularly 11 interested in, is maintaining that U-turn, and also that 12 is going to be very -- a lot of negative impact for a lot 13 of people on the northeast quadrant, whether you are a 14 business or you are a resident. It is going to force 15 people away and create more congestion down the road 16 possibly. 17 So those are the two areas we have concerns 18 with, and but overall we like what we see. 19 WILLIAM SANDKE: Thank you very much, Joe. 20 And to all the speakers, tremendously coherent 21 and cogent remarks. I know our planners are paying close 22 attention and meaningful stuff, too, particularly with 23 the specific intersections highlighted and the 24 suggestions, at least things to be looked at more 25 specifically.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 101 Page: 18 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 Thanks again for being here tonight. This is 2 the first one I have ever done. I want to give you all a 3 round of applause. You were awesome. 4 I want to make sure I read everything I'm 5 supposed to say. Thank you for being here. Your 6 comments are very well received. 7 As a reminder the written and spoken comments 8 collected this evening and written responses to those 9 comments will be provided to the SANDAG Transportation 10 Committee before it considers approving the project at 11 the June 15th meeting. Written comments can be submitted 12 to the SANDAG Project Team for the next week. 13 The printed program contains contact 14 information for submitting comments to the project 15 manager. Tonight's meeting will end at 8:00 o'clock, so 16 we have our Staff members here to answer questions. The 17 Project Staff is available to answer questions, and the 18 display boards will be posted until then. Thank you for 19 attending tonight. SANDAG appreciates your input. 20 Having this been the first one I have ever 21 done, I thank you guys for what you made tonight a very 22 productive evening. Thank you again. 23 We have something -- we have one more speaker? 24 Randy. Randy Van Vleck. 25 RANDY VAN VLECK: Excellent. Sorry I was late.
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 102 Page: 19 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 I was prepping for a bike tour. Excellent. Are you 2 ready for the Bike to Work Tomorrow? Excellent. So when 3 we get this University Avenue bike lane built, we will 4 see more hands up in the air, right? 5 So I wanted to express my support. My name is 6 Randy Van Vleck, I'm the Transportation and Planning 7 Manager for the City Heights Community Development 8 Corporation, a community-based organization, founded by 9 resident leaders of City Heights in 1981. 10 I'm also on the City of San Diego Bicycle 11 Advisory Board, and for the last six years or so, we have 12 worked to build the Environment Team, a resident group of 13 leaders from City Heights to support the University 14 Avenue Bikeway. 15 In fact, the original line that was to go up 16 Orange Avenue and zigzag through the hills of Rolando we 17 urged and worked with SANDAG to make sure the alignment 18 would come down to University Avenue. We are very happy 19 about that, because that decision is going to bring 20 investment to University Avenue, one of the most 21 underserved parts in the whole region. 22 We have three fully right turns designed in the 23 '50s to move cars as fast as speed as possible. We are 24 really excited that the SANDAG plan is going to eliminate 25 those three right turns, and also as called for in the
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 103 Page: 20 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 University Avenue Mobility Plan, a City document from 2 2011, there is a plan in the books to remove those three 3 right turns. 4 SANDAG's project is going to fund and implement 5 that and take it to the next level with the first ever 6 protected intersection in the whole region. We are very 7 excited to see that. We want to support that on the 8 record. 9 We want to see the investment all the way from 10 Estrella all the way to La Mesa maximized. We would like 11 to register our support for the first ever floating bus 12 islands in the region. We are really excited to see 13 that. 14 And once again City Heights is at the forefront 15 of innovation in terms of transportation. We appreciate 16 SANDAG Staff moving that forward and congratulations to 17 them on their successful application. 18 Thinking further east, we would like to see the 19 Chollas Triangle Master Plan implemented as part of the 20 project in the most reasonable way possible. We're happy 21 that Chollas Parkway is going to be closed down. That 22 street is crazy and needs to be shut down. Too many 23 people's lives have been lost at the Chollas Triangle, 24 and we're ready for these completed investments. 25 City Heights' CDC is happy to support the
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 104 Page: 21 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 initiative to move forward and the work that everyone in 2 the room here did to advance this project and build it as 3 soon as possible. 4 Thank you, Staff, for being here and making 5 this possible. Happy Bike Month. 6 WILLIAM SANDKE: On that happy note, we'll 7 conclude tonight's hearing. Thank you very much.
8
9 * * *
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 105 Page: 22 SANDAG Hearing PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE UNIVERSITY BIKEWAY
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, Rosalie A. Kramm, Certified Shorthand 4 Reporter for the State of California, CSR No. 5469, do 5 hereby certify: 6 That the foregoing was taken before me at 7 the time and place herein set forth; that the proceedings 8 were reported stenographically by me and were transcribed 9 through computerized transcription by me; that the 10 foregoing is a true record of the proceedings taken at 11 that time; and that I am not interested in the event of 12 the action. 13 Witness my hand dated May 17, 2018.
14
15
16 ______17 ROSALIE A. KRAMM 18 CA CSR NO. 5469
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRAMM COURT REPORTING 106 Page: 23 G,b COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL tr Please ema¡l me project updates in the future (email address required above)
GOMMENTS: (P--,-L-
ê<-<-_-,
For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 107 WHmffi Gb MMENTS byBlKE
Please re your comments below. P note that SAN documents are,public records and may be osed to the public upon u ank you
ADDRESS .PHONE EMAIL
Please email me p ect n th ure mail address required above).
GOMMENTS
Go*l eo+, T*l,l u-F ) eJ;c*l-U n't r¡r{ J s +rr \-øl I lowe + I t'tr
i n4u ecli¿n ...,.1+ h ,*rl ftt O ("1 r€.n¿ vQ-
,L 'l ^-l¿ r4 iloJ rhe LiL(, owl J,to, z, re ot( r¿) e.* +E *+ I \^.r^,1 g t see* b-",'lt- l+S ff
For official use only Bikeway Project: Date Received: 108 W",æraffi G,b GOMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL
Please ema¡l me project updates i ail address required
COMMENTS:
)
ö
For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 109 wãniffiú G,b COMENTARIOS byBlKE
Por favor, comparta sus comentarios a continuación. Tenga en cuenta que los documentos de SANDAG se consideran registros públicos y pueden hacerse del conocimiento público de ser solicitados. Gracias.
NOMBRE DIRECCIÓN relÉrouo CORREO
Por favor, envíeme información actualizada del proyecto en el futuro (se requiere una dirección de correo electrónico arriba).
COMENTARIOS:
\Å) -*|oV L¿ztr/v /pvt'h"Ì- t?rtY J, * I/r u+r-,'(l \ ñto
lcc6ll rs&f ü hr(releTq V f//|ên*.o_ /o,* /- 144 / t4,t^¿ L (\ r'', ,- I
ô C
fil t,t/ 0 ùf r(¡'h¿¿:ç lkr' d" lot L7"Å ê,¿,.-t ,t/7 U+a,k'r., 1 o
Solamente para uso oficial: Proyecto de vía ciclista: Fecha de recepción: 110 WWnffi Gb COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
ADDRESS PHONE EMA¡L
F "uovefolYw"l'ü\ COMMENTS:
'{[
:á tl
ll l/\
For otficial use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 111 Wãraffi G,b COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
C p¡""re email me project updates in the future (email address required above) t rts ôÑ COMMENTS: 5.rt t(¡¡ IF¡ É l¿ tT rt t¡-l W PT4I¡T H4rP }zÇrñ N t^- Tu r¿Ñ Aí THI sry¡tl {uN D çqú 9r . Çfifta 6t5, fu A {WM vE+ t¿V€, ¿Añ "Iufñ fl Çø ßptt- op tt| W o[.l 5Y tI - *r¿r¿E *A(, t'6TS il.^$, ,', ÈSfg! Añ ì2 WfrflãfrÍ( Tþ|-tí \rtuL Kf r+E641rW L-y t$fl¡r.sr E\, * [ nru vt - -fu(¿Xl I
lu 0 vcV 9(Ew LtMtr awí tslT fLçl¿¡üN) to lo -ls Bûtt rN ,+t,l- ttt{LË¿T\or{ S.
&ñ
For otficial use only Bikeway Project: Date Received: 112 Wæîaffi G,b COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMA¡L tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above).
COMMENTS: (' o*, ¿* l/rt ,u.nÇt /
/- o 4o g¿-- / ¿<. a\- Yet 1e
n .e- þ* f-, -/t--(/þ U E n
For otficial use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 113 Wãmffi Gb COMMENTS byBlKE
Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.
Please emaíl me project updates in the future (email address required above)
COMMENTS
t^t\"^- \d"t*ô ( l.f u."-[,,*Àr Sk*o^*U ¿"4,à- fo \"* ß É rt¡1 ïx.x,"N*r,.
@- Sr-Lud\.L Dr^,q cn^- (Å¡"-rì*^ñ, q,5¿*Lsì- 4/ { \ G- Lr^ ç :;¡:a .f6+tr S\. d'Sqfl u-r. '{" tÈt cr'* Qtå.- .¡ .ì\s",$lù* \L BJn*.*t.*^,, ù \ \\ f*q\+ o\ Þ'flsh\r.^r^r\ç, \}q-\ù\"¿ -J ffi\ B.\<,. àB Þ- { \) .W.\ C þn*^,ñ*¿^ ? For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: 114 WHtffi Gb COMMENTS byBlKE Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above). COMMENTS: 4 ltL uâ la -t ¿ ê c L#,/;; *n^(4 L õ4-ra w/ // ^,1-\ ¿- ¿ 14// & t /L e æ. ,74- L, /4- C-/ tr t-4 5 Þ (,,/ kr 2r) For official use only: @rytot Bikeway Project: Date Received: 115 w 116 p ,R \.-) o+) \J ú)1 1 n , il -Jta 10 V "/ l/) )q l v {\t\ 1 ¡, t ç Ì Ç ",t3 n )VI ú n G,b COMENTARIOS byBlKE Por favor, comparta sus comentarios a continuación. Tenga en cuenta que los documentos de SANDAG se consideran registros públicos y pueden hacerse del conocimiento público de ser solicitados. Gracias. NOMBRE DIRECC¡ÓN TELÉFONO CORREO una dirección de correo electrónico arriba). GOMENTARIOS: 10 € / -ë J -¿t U a _0 ü t U ,0 I ,a -/ o ll \ bn P vU ( o ? t? -/( / ic /o a.t / v I & 2 dt4 U ./ &- ¿ .-/ O ¿ Aa- lo, Ð )u 'e Pa,a l,lr(t -qi *e, q tG ^bi¿t¿ Pc)f 0vau ¿ V îuþrt *1/z Solamente para uso oficial: a(. I 41,wiv¿v( ( Proyecto de vía ciclista: ^ Fecha de recepción: 117 From: Moss, Alison To: "Lynn Edwards" Cc: "Espelet, Leonardo"; "Willis, Naomi" Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:25:00 AM Attachments: image001.png Hi Lynn, I understand your frustration with the (overwhelmingly) cut-through traffic. The City of San Diego has a Traffic Calming Program Handbook, and starting on page T24 includes several options for “volume reduction.” Again, it would be up to the City to pursue any of these (or other) traffic calming measures along Aragon Drive. You’re right that the level of service at Rolando Blvd/University Ave is projected to degrade with the project. But – I would say – only slightly. Furthermore, it meets the City of San Diego’s standards for intersection operations (i.e., LOS D or better) in all scenarios. Because of the nature of the street grid, I think it unlikely that the slightly diminished level of service at Rolando will cause more people to use Aragon. Thanks again for your feedback on the University Bikeway. Sincerely, 118 Alison Moss, AICP Associate Planner, Active Transportation SANDAG Phone: (619) 595-5354 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Lynn Edwards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 9:08 AM To: Moss, Alison Hi Alison, Again, thank you for taking the time to address some of our questions. For the small size of the community and the length of Aragon, we think the volume is too high, since we know that 67 percent of the traffic is cut-through traffic. Since we also see that level of service at Rolando/University will degrade as a result of the bikeway, our expectation is that at least some of that traffic will shift to the Aragon/University intersection. Thanks, Lynn From: Moss, Alison [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 1:59 PM To: Lynn Edwards Cc: 'Espelet, Leonardo'; 'Willis, Naomi' Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Hi Lynn, Thanks for clarifying the location and maneuver in question. I understand that the speeds and volumes along Aragon, from the 94 to University Avenue, are a major concern for you and your neighbors. And I agree that an average speed (of 40 mph) on this street is inappropriately fast. The volume (at +1100 NB vehicles per day), however, is not exceptionally high relative to other streets of the same nature. The volume, more than approach speed*, was the primary factor we 119 considered when prohibiting certain vehicle movements at this intersection. Because the volumes are relatively low and because sightlines are relatively clear, conflicts between people riding bikes through the intersection and those turning right onto University Avenue are expected to minimal. As such, the project does not propose a right turn on red prohibition at this location. Back to the speed issue… As I mentioned before, any treatments on Aragon would be beyond the scope of this project. But I am happy to share my opinion and professional judgement: A mixture of “horizontal” and “vertical” traffic calming would likely help. Horizontal treatments make the travel ways more narrow and curvy, encouraging people to slow down. In this category are things like chicanes, chokers, curb extensions and neighborhood traffic circles. A series of circles – at Celia Vista, Marlowe, Waite and Livingston – might work well. The skewed geometry of these intersections is not ideal, but they may be amenable. Vertical treatments – like raised crosswalks, speed humps, speed bumps and speed cushions – also encourage people to slow down. Of the vertical options, speed cushions are generally preferred by first responders because they include cut-outs which allow their vehicles, but not regular passenger vehicles, to pass though unimpeded. Through the implementation of circles alone (at the above locations), you might achieve desired traffic calming/speed reduction. If not, you might look to augment with speed cushions. Maybe one between Livingston and Waite? Maybe three between Celia Vista and University? Thank you, and I hope you have a nice weekend. Alison Moss, AICP Associate Planner, Active Transportation SANDAG Phone: (619) 595-5354 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube *The speed is, to a large extent, controlled by the signalized intersection where Argaon Drive meets our project corridor. From: Lynn Edwards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:37 PM To: Moss, Alison Hi Alison, 120 Thanks for taking the time to respond to our questions. I still have concerns about the right turn on University from Aragon NB because of the traffic volume and speed (the August 2016 study shows +1100 NB vehicles per day with a speed of 40 mph) and we plan to request another traffic volume/speed study from SD traffic engineering this coming August. Additionally, we recently found out that the Kroc Center expansion, which is expected in 2020, intends to add an additional 5,000 memberships. We’re not sure exactly on what streets those additional 5,000 members would be traveling. Thank you for the pointer to the updated Street Design Manual. I am familiar with most of the traffic calming measures as many of them were referenced in the Circulate San Diego manual. I would really appreciate your input on which ones you think would be appropriate for our community. Both Aragon and Rolando from Celia Vista to University were shown in last year’s traffic study to warrant traffic calming. They are both on steep grades with speeds averaging 40 mph. A third location, Vista Grande from Racine to Celia Vista, is also on the list, but it’s flat. In all three cases, the city traffic engineer has recommended v-calming radar signs, but we would like to see better solutions. Thanks again Alison. Lynn Edwards Rolando Park Community Council Co-President From: Moss, Alison [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:34 AM To: Lynn Edwards Cc: Espelet, Leonardo; Willis, Naomi Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Hi Lynn, Sorry for the minor delay. Please see my responses in green, below. I really do appreciate your interest in the project and your efforts to improve your community. If there’s anything you’d like further clarified, I’m happy to discuss over the phone. Sincerely, Alison Moss, AICP Associate Planner, Active Transportation SANDAG Phone: (619) 595-5354 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube 121 From: Moss, Alison Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:56 PM To: 'Lynn Edwards' Thanks for your comments, Lynn, and for your interest in the project! I’d like to confirm my responses with my consultants (who did the engineering and traffic study) and get back to you shortly. Thanks and talk to you soon, Alison Moss, AICP Associate Planner, Active Transportation SANDAG Phone: (619) 595-5354 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Lynn Edwards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 12:13 PM To: Moss, Alison Hi Alison, Thank you for taking the time to talk with Rolando Park Community Council board members and answer our questions at the Open House last week. For the most part, we like the changes that we see. I have a couple of follow-up questions and then I have three written comments for the SANDAG Transportation Committee (the pamphlet said that we could submit written comments to you). Questions: 1. At the University/Aragon intersection, you said the southwest corner would be a no turn on red corner. Will that also be true for the southeast corner (adjacent to the Kroc Center)? No, the current design does not propose a no right turn on red restriction for the northbound to eastbound right turn movement. 2. We didn’t discuss the University/69th intersection. Is any treatment planned for that intersection? The study by SD traffic engineering last spring shows that ~900 vehicles use that intersection daily 122 and northbound speeds average 35 mph. No, we are not proposing any intersection improvements here because we do not anticipate major safety/conflicts here, relative to other intersections. We are proposing bikeway conflict markings and a continental crosswalk. Comments: 1. For the free right turn at the north/east intersection of University/Aragon, instead of no turn on red as on the University south side, I think it will be confusing to drivers because of the inconsistency with the south side of University/Aragon. As someone who travels daily on Aragon and University, I frequently see drivers westbound at this intersection who turn right onto northbound Aragon and don’t stop at all even for a red light. I hope that changing it to a no turn on red will be reconsidered for consistency. A brief explanation on the rationale behind right turn on red prohibitions: Where right turn vehicle volumes are high, we are proposing separating vehicle right turns from bike rider through-movements (to eliminate the stress associated with merging with traffic). To do so, we propose keeping bike riders alongside the curb, where most prefer to be anyway. To ensure that the high volume of right turning vehicles do not conflict with the though bicycle movements, we’re providing a new signal phase (a right turn arrow, which goes red when bicycle riders get a green). a. The aforementioned scenario applies to EB traffic on University at Aragon, but not to WB traffic. The right turn volumes to north Aragon are very low compared with those to south Aragon (WB to NB: 28 right turns total during am and pm peak hours, EB to SB: 95 right turns total during am and pm peak hours). Because of the lower volumes, as well as an existing bus stop at the northeast corner that requires busses have access to the curb here, we’re maintaining a “mixing zone.” The mixing zone delineates space (for drivers making right turns and bicycle riders moving through) and – we feel – should be reasonably “low-stress” given the volumes. 2. We received no clear consensus or assurances that the University Bikeway will not negatively impact the volume of cut-through traffic in our community. This is a concern as residents are already frustrated with both the current volume and speeding by cut-through traffic. This has been the number one priority for the community council for the last two years. We would like some assurance that the traffic flow in and out of the community will be reviewed at a time point after the Bikeway is completed and any needed remedial action can be taken. Based on our knowledge of the study area, and the traffic and safety impact assessment prepared for the project, we don’t anticipate the University Bikeway project to cause an increase of cut-through traffic within your community. Based on our discussions with you and other members of the community, we understand that Aragon experiences a significant number of cut-through traffic. Since the proposed bikeway project would affect the E/W routes, we don’t see a direct connection with the project and potential N/S cut- through traffic. That said, I would recommend the community continue working with the City of San Diego and request an evaluation of existing volumes and speeds along Aragon. The City’s recently updated Street Design Manual includes a comprehensive toolbox of available traffic calming devices that could alleviate this situation. If you desire, I could point you to the section of the manual that shows these devices and provide my opinion on which devices may be feasible and appropriate for your community. 123 3. We see the University Bikeway as a positive change for our community and we’re excited to see it completed! It’s our vision to see this section of University revitalized and we think the Bikeway is an important component to that change. We look forward to sharing the final design with the community so that they will be as excited as we are. Thanks again, Alison. Lynn Edwards Rolando Park Community Council Co-President 124 From: Moss, Alison To: "Lynn Edwards" Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:56:00 PM Attachments: image001.png Thanks for your comments, Lynn, and for your interest in the project! I’d like to confirm my responses with my consultants (who did the engineering and traffic study) and get back to you shortly. Thanks and talk to you soon, Alison Moss, AICP Associate Planner, Active Transportation SANDAG Phone: (619) 595-5354 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Lynn Edwards [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 12:13 PM To: Moss, Alison Hi Alison, Thank you for taking the time to talk with Rolando Park Community Council board members and answer our questions at the Open House last week. For the most part, we like the changes that we see. I have a couple of follow-up questions and then I have three written comments for the SANDAG Transportation Committee (the pamphlet said that we could submit written comments to you). Questions: 1. At the University/Aragon intersection, you said the southwest corner would be a no turn on red corner. Will that also be true for the southeast corner (adjacent to the Kroc Center)? 2. We didn’t discuss the University/69th intersection. Is any treatment planned for that intersection? The study by SD traffic engineering last spring shows that ~900 vehicles use that intersection daily and northbound speeds average 35 mph. Comments: 125 1. For the free right turn at the north/east intersection of University/Aragon, instead of no turn on red as on the University south side, I think it will be confusing to drivers because of the inconsistency with the south side of University/Aragon. As someone who travels daily on Aragon and University, I frequently see drivers westbound at this intersection who turn right onto northbound Aragon and don’t stop at all even for a red light. I hope that changing it to a no turn on red will be reconsidered for consistency. 2. We received no clear consensus or assurances that the University Bikeway will not negatively impact the volume of cut-through traffic in our community. This is a concern as residents are already frustrated with both the current volume and speeding by cut-through traffic. This has been the number one priority for the community council for the last two years. We would like some assurance that the traffic flow in and out of the community will be reviewed at a time point after the Bikeway is completed and any needed remedial action can be taken. 3. We see the University Bikeway as a positive change for our community and we’re excited to see it completed! It’s our vision to see this section of University revitalized and we think the Bikeway is an important component to that change. We look forward to sharing the final design with the community so that they will be as excited as we are. Thanks again, Alison. Lynn Edwards Rolando Park Community Council Co-President 126 From: Lynn Edwards To: Moss, Alison Cc: "Espelet, Leonardo"; "Willis, Naomi" Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:18:52 PM Attachments: image002.png Hi Alison, Location B. Oops, I see my error in my previous email. Traffic would be NB on Aragon to University. Thanks, Lynn From: Moss, Alison [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:12 PM To: Lynn Edwards Cc: 'Espelet, Leonardo'; 'Willis, Naomi' Subject: RE: Follow up to University Bikeway Open House Hi Lynn, Before I follow up with you, I wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same location and maneuver. Are we talking “A” or “B”? (These are two pretty different scenarios and would, therefor, receive different design treatments.) Once I hear back, I’ll be happy to discuss this issue and potential traffic calming solutions for Aragon (proper). 127 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-4 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 File Number 1500300 FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2019 APPORTIONMENT Introduction Recommendation The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides The Transportation Committee is asked to funding for capital and operating assistance to recommend that the Board of Directors agencies providing transportation services in rural approve the Federal Fiscal Year 2019 areas through the Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area apportionment of Federal Transit Formula Program. On May 9, 2018, Caltrans published Administration Section 5311 Non-Urbanized the estimated apportionments for the Federal Fiscal Area Formula Program funds for the Year (FFY) 2019 Section 5311 Program and requested San Diego region. a call for projects. For the San Diego area, this program is divided between the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) by a formula based on the rural population served by each agency. Discussion FTA Section 5311 funds initially are apportioned to the state. The state, in turn, reapportions the funds to the regions based solely on the regional rural population as a share of the total state rural population. Consistent with an agreement with the transit agencies approved in FY 2007, SANDAG allocates these federal funds based on service area rural population: 59 percent to NCTD and 41 percent to MTS. The applications from the transit agencies are due to the state by July 31, 2018. Based on the Caltrans estimate, there is $747,399 available for San Diego County for FFY 2019. Of this amount, NCTD would receive $440,965 (59%), and MTS would receive $471,606 (41% of $747,339 plus $165,172 of carryover from prior years). Both NCTD and MTS plan to use the available funding for operations. The NCTD Board of Directors and the MTS Board of Directors are scheduled to approve their Program of Projects on June 21, 2018, and June 14, 2018, respectively. The projects also must be included in an approved Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Projects from MTS were programmed in Amendment No. 11 to the 2016 RTIP and projects from NCTD are expected to be included in Amendment No. 14 to the 2016 RTIP, scheduled for approval by the SANDAG Transportation Committee at its July 20, 2018, meeting. JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director Key Staff Contact: Michelle Smith, (619) 595-5608, [email protected] AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-5 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: ACCEPT DRAFT 2018 COORDINATED PLAN File Number 3320100 Introduction Recommendation SANDAG is responsible for the development of the The Transportation Committee is asked federally-mandated Coordinated Public Transit and to accept the Draft 2018 Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Plan) for San Diego County. The Coordinated Plan Transportation Plan for release to the serves as a five-year specialized transportation plan public for review and comment. focused on the specific transportation needs of senior, disabled, and low-income populations in the San Diego region. It is updated biannually and enables the continued distribution of Section 5310 federal funding to support projects and programs that expand mobility options for seniors and individuals with disabilities. The plan also is used to guide the distribution of local funding for projects targeted at improving specialized transportation for seniors through the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant program. Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) staff have reviewed the draft 2018 Coordinated Plan and provided key data related to performance measures and Service Implementation Plans, which list the operational changes each transit operator implemented, or plans to implement, in order to balance proposed fiscal year budgets. Discussion The Coordinated Plan is designed to implement the goals and policies articulated in the Regional Plan and to fulfill federal requirements. It also incorporates the Regional Short-Range Transit Plan required by SANDAG Board Policy No. 018: Regional Transit Service Planning and Implementation, as well as service monitoring data required by state law. Public Involvement Public involvement was essential to the development of the draft 2018 Coordinated Plan. Outreach meetings were held in the San Diego region on January 23, 2018, and January 31, 2018, for members of the public to attend and participate. Two focus group meetings were also held on February 28, 2018, and March 19, 2018, consisting of transportation providers and transit riders. Much of the feedback we received noted the importance of continuing existing transportation services, including door-to-door and door-through-door services. SANDAG Working Groups The Coordinated Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan Working Group, which is comprised of community members and social service agency representatives, provided input on how to prioritize the needs of the region’s specialized transportation network. The Short-Range Transit Planning Task Force, which includes staff from MTS, NCTD, SANDAG, and Facility Access to Coordinated Transportation, Inc., also provided assistance in updating the 2018 Coordinated Plan. Updated Content In addition to the public involvement noted above, for SANDAG to continue to distribute federal funding through the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities grant program, federal law requires that the Coordinated Plan include: • An assessment of available services that identify current public, private, and non-profit transportation providers; • An assessment of transportation needs for seniors and individuals with disabilities; • Strategies to address the identified gaps between existing services and needs, as well as opportunities to achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and • Priorities for implementation. As the need for services has grown, the 2018 Coordinated Plan has been updated to prioritize funding for new and existing transportation services, coordination of resources, and mobility management services that leverage resources to maximize the benefits offered to consumers. The Coordinated Plan also includes the most recent Service Implementation Plans developed by the transit operators. These implementation plans were used to update the Regional Service Implementation Plan, which includes operational changes identified by the transit agencies, as well as future needs for service. It also includes the short-range transit projects identified in the Regional Plan. Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan It is important to note that the region currently is developing a strategic plan for the future of specialized transportation. The effort includes outreach to key stakeholders and peer regions, and is examining the potential application of emerging technologies. The current schedule calls for the strategy to be drafted and finalized through the end of this calendar year and will be used to inform the next Coordinated Plan and call for projects for the Section 5310 and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant programs in 2020. Next Steps Pending action by the Transportation Committee, the draft Coordinated Plan would be released for public comment between June 15 and July 20, 2018, culminating in a public hearing scheduled for the July 20, 2018, Transportation Committee meeting. Once approved by the Transportation Committee, 2 the plan would be submitted to the state and federal Departments of Transportation. The draft Coordinated Plan is available on the SANDAG website at: sandag.org/coordinatedplan. CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Lisa Madsen, (619) 595-1432, [email protected] 3 Agenda Item No. 18-06-6 Date: June 15, 2018 File Number: 1500400 Memo to: Transportation Committee From: André Douzdjian, Director of Finance Action Requested: Recommend Subject: Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendments: State Grant Awards Overview SANDAG has been awarded $493.803 million in state funding through various Senate Bill 1 (Beall, 2017) (SB 1)-funded programs. Amendments to the FY 2019 Program Budget and 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) are required to accept and incorporate this funding. Budgetary Impact: Would add a total of $554.951 million to the FY 2019 Program Budget, comprised of $493.803 million in additional state funding capacity and $61.148 million in regional funds. Considerations: Collection of SB 1 funds started in November 2017; staff will coordinate with the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans on the risk associated with awarding contracts supported by SB 1. It is anticipated that awarded contracts would have a higher priority of receiving funds as compared to contracts not yet awarded. Next Steps Pending approval by the Board of Directors, RTIP Amendment No. 16-13 would be submitted for state and federal approval. Recommendation The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the proposed FY 2019 Program Budget amendments, accepting $493.803 million in state funds for various Capital and Overall Work Program projects, in substantially the same form as attached; and (2) adopt Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Resolution No. RTC-2018-07, in substantially the same form as attached, approving Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Key Staff Contacts: Sandi Craig, (619) 699-6998, [email protected] Dawn Vettese, (619) 595-5346, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendments: State Grant Awards 2. 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 Attachment 1 Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendments: State Grant Awards Several project budget amendments are needed in order to incorporate recently awarded state and federal funds into the FY 2019 Program Budget, along with required matching funds, and other project budget updates. Exhibit A includes a summary of the grant awards, proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget changes, and proposed Overall Work Program (OWP) budget changes. Attachment 4 provides details on the proposed budget amendments. Staff will coordinate with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans on the risk associated with awarding contracts supported by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Beall, 2017). Collection of SB 1 funds started in November 2017; however, it is not clear at this time how awarded funds would be distributed in the case of a repeal. It is anticipated that awarded contracts would have a higher priority of receiving funds as compared to contracts not yet awarded. Discussion Proposed Amendments to the FY 2019 Capital Program Budget Changes proposed to the FY 2019 Capital Improvement Program Budget generally reflect acceptance of grant funds and changes needed to accurately reflect updated project costs and committed funding, such as required local match funds. There is one exception. The Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track project (CIP Project No. 1239816) reflects an overall reduction of funding and an increase in cost. SB 1-Local Partnership Program (LPP) grant funds, along with their corresponding TransNet match funds, were budgeted for a portion of construction phase costs, with the goal of leveraging these funds to support SANDAG’s proposal for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. Ultimately the TIRCP funds were not awarded, resulting in the construction phase not being fully funded at this time. As a result, the budget amendment proposes to remove the SB 1-LPP funds and match from the project in order to preserve their future use in accordance with grant requirements while additional options to fully fund construction are pursued. Regarding costs, the project expenditure plan has been updated to reflect the latest cost estimate, which has increased by about $15.7 million dollars, to approximately $85 million. This is based on updated project information and anticipated escalation costs due to a delayed construction date. The ‘Begin Construction’ milestone has been delayed from FY 2020 to FY 2021. Proposed Amendments to the FY 2019 Overall Work Program Budget In late May, Caltrans awarded about $2.4 million to support several of the pending discretionary grants listed in Chapter 5 of the adopted FY 2019 Program Budget. Changes proposed to the FY 2019 Overall Work Program Budget generally reflect acceptance of these grant funds and changes needed to accurately reflect project costs and committed funding, such as required local match funds. The Caltrans grants are proposed to be matched with $231,744 in local funds, for a total increase in funding to the OWP budget of $2,634,829. Details of the OWP project budget amendments are included in Attachment 4. 2 Exhibit A State Grant Awards to SANDAG Projects - March through June 2018 Amount of New FY 2019 Project Project Title Funding Program State Funds Awarded Number ($1000s) CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 1200504 STIP - RIP* $116,141 2 1200509 I-5 HOV (North Coast Corridor) SCC $195,000 3 1200510 SHOPP $34,651 4 1207802 I-15/SR 78 HOV Direct Connector STIP APDE $7,000 5 1212501 SR 125/SR 94 Direct Connector STIP APDE $7,948 6 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 TCEP $10,500 7 1239818 Signal Optimization and Respacing TIRCP $15,900 8 1280516 I-805 North Auxiliary Lanes STIP APDE $4,200 9 1201101 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East POE TCEP $42,168 10 1390506 SR 125 to WB 905 Connector TCEP $21,980 11 1223081 North Park/Mid-City: University Bikeway TIRCP $5,872 12 1146600 San Onofre to Pulgas Double Track Phase 2 STIP - IIP $30,040 CAPITAL TOTAL $491,400 PLANNING PROJECTS 13 3102200 NCTD Comprehensive Operations Analysis Strategic Partnerships $325 14 3102300 Ride-Hailing Data Collection and Analysis Sustainable Communities $913 Regional Collaboration to Advance Transportation 15 3201600 Adaptation $250 System Resiliency Planning for Future Coastal Rail Trail Segments in an 16 3301100 Sustainable Communities $265.085 Integrated Transportation Network 17 3321800 Planning for Operations of Mobility Hubs Strategic Partnerships $300 Regional Transportation System Management and 18 3331200 Strategic Partnerships $350 Operations Plan PLANNING TOTAL $2,403 GRAND TOTAL $493,803 *another $44 million was previously programmed for future work on this project SHA State Highway Account SB1 Senate Bill 1 - Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act PTA Public Transportation Account STIP - RIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional (SHA and SB1) SCC Solutions for Congested Corridors (SB1) SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHA and SB1) STIP - APDE STIP Advanced Project Development Element (SHA and SB1) TCEP Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (SB1) TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (Cap & Trade, PTA, and SB1) STIP - IIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional (SHA and SB1) 3 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FY 2019 Capital Project Budget Changes ($1,000s) a b b-a Project Approved FY 19 Proposed FY 19 Project Title Budget Change Funding Changes Number Budget Budget TransNet EARLY ACTION PROGRAM PROJECTS I-5 Corridor 1200504 I-5 HOV: Birmingham Dr. to Palomar Airport Dr. $ 135,778 $ 381,651 $ 245,873 STIP RIP, SCC, SHOPP, TransNet, RSTP, CMAQ 1200509 I-5 HOV: San Elijo Bridge Replacement 331,395 355,510 24,115 STIP RIP, SCC, SHOPP 1200510 I-5 HOV Carlsbad 317 127,261 126,944 STIP RIP, TransNet ,CMAQ SR 78 Corridor 1207802 I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors 0 7,937 7,937 STIP APDE, TransNet SR 125 Corridor 1212501 SR 94/SR125 South to East Connector 0 16,240 16,240 STIP APDE, TransNet Coastal Corridor 1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 14,440 29,440 15,000 TCEP and TransNet 1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track 33,793 14,853 (18,940) LPP and TransNet 1239818 Signal Respacing and Optimization 2,000 17,900 15,900 TIRCP I-805 Corridor 1280516 I-805 North Aux Lanes 0 4,242 4,242 STIP APDE and TransNet TOTAL TransNet EARLY ACTION PROGRAM $ 517,723 $ 955,034 $ 437,311 PROJECTS TCIF/GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS 1201101 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry$ 130,768 $ 172,936 $ 42,168 TCEP 1390506 SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound Connector 0 36,257 36,257 TCEP, Demo, SBX Toll Revenues 0 TOTAL TCIF/GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS $ 130,768 $ 209,193 $ 78,425 REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROJECTS 1223081 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: University Bikeway$ 1,076 $ 7,576 $ 6,500 TIRCP, TransNet TOTAL REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROJECTS $ 1,076 $ 7,576 $ 6,500 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS 1146600 San Onofre to Pulgas Double Track, Phase 2$ - $ 30,040 $ 30,040 STIP IIP TOTAL MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $ - $ 30,040 $ 30,040 CAPITAL BUDGET CHANGES $ 649,567 $ 1,201,843 $ 552,276 4 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FY 2019 Overall Work Program - Proposed New Project Budgets Fund Source Project Number Project Title Grant Funds Total OWP FTA 3102200 NCTD Comprehensive Operations Analysis $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Sub-recipient: NCTD The Future of Mobility: Analyzing the Impact of Ride-hailing on SB 1 3102300 $ 913,000 $ 991,500 CA Communities Sub-recipient: SCAG, MTC Regional Collaboration to Advance Transportation System PTA 3201600 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Resiliency FHWA 3321800 Planning for Operations of Mobility Hubs $ 300,000 $ 331,400 Sub-recipient: City of Chula Vista Planning for Future Coastal Rail Trail Segments in an Integrated SB 1 3301100 $ 265,085 $ 299,429 Transportation Network Sub-recipient: City of Encinitas Regional Transportation System Management and Operations FHWA 3331200 $ 350,000 $ 437,500 Plan Total $ 2,403,085 $ 2,634,829 5 Exhibit B FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1200504 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: CAL09 Project Manager: Arturo Jacobo Project Name: I-5 HOV: Birmingham Drive to Palomar Airport Drive PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6816 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Scope: Progress to Date: Construct one High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction and soundwalls. Design of the HOV lanes is 100 percent complete. Applications for state funding have been submitted. Construction phase can begin when funding is identified. Construct one High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction, soundwalls, and bike trails. Design of the HOV lanes is 100 percent complete. Negotiations with the CM/GC contractor are underway. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Final Environmental Document N/A N/A Ready to Advertise Jun-18 Jun-18 On I-5 from Birmingham Drive to Palomar Airport Road. Begin Construction TBD Oct-18 Open to Public TBD Dec-21 Construction Complete TBD Jun-24 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $614 $614 $218 $202 $116 $155 $124 $163 $543 $384 $875 $880 $892 $1,111 $502 $395 $60 $63 $9 $0 $14 $0 $3,967 $3,967 Environmental Document 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Design 9,745 9,745 1,616 $816 0 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $11,361 11,361 Right-of-Way Support 212 212 689 $10 99 778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,000 1,000 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Communications 893 893 350 $225 250 375 420 420 500 500 600 600 400 400 250 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,663 3,663 Project Contingency 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total SANDAG $11,464 $11,464 $2,873 $1,253 $465 $2,108 $544 $583 $1,043 $884 $1,475 $1,480 $1,292 $1,511 $752 $645 $60 $63 $9 $0 $14 $0 $19,991 $19,991 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 48,901 48,901 11,072 $10,072 1,709 2,709 0 700 175 0 175 0 175 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $62,382 62,382 Right-of-Way Support 3,034 3,034 1,844 $519 1,482 2,807 537 537 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,947 6,947 Right-of-Way Capital 275 275 4,207 $17 2,162 6,352 745 2,169 3,202 1,778 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $10,666 10,666 Construction Support 0 0 0 $0 0 1,321 296 4,467 6,900 14,300 12,860 16,700 14,419 8,175 7,599 1,524 1,213 0 200 0 325 0 $43,812 46,487 Construction Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 11,719 600 31,600 31,200 73,000 71,266 94,034 74,184 20,084 42,018 4,741 4,825 0 650 0 1,075 0 $225,818 235,178 Total Caltrans $52,210 $52,210 $17,123 $10,608 $5,353 $24,908 $2,178 $39,473 $41,502 $89,103 $84,401 $110,834 $88,778 $28,259 $49,792 $6,265 $6,038 $0 $850 $0 $1,400 $0 $349,625 $361,660 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $63,674 $63,674 $19,996 $11,861 $5,818 $27,016 $2,722 $40,056 $42,545 $89,987 $85,876 $112,314 $90,070 $29,770 $50,544 $6,910 $6,098 $63 $859 $0 $1,414 $0 $369,616 $381,651 TransNet Pass-Through $43,240 $43,240 $6,977 $7,663 $3,052 $3,052 $691 $691 $160 $160 $75 $75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,195 $54,881 Caltrans RE Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TN AC Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($5,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: CMAQ $686 $686 $5,083 $5,083 $400 $400 $0 $250 $0 $1,098 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,169 $7,517 DEMO 0 0 $1,220 $1,220 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $1,220 $1,220 RSTP 8,284 8,284 $4,680 $1,579 1,280 4,255 $170 $170 25 25 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $14,439 $14,313 STATE: $0 STIP-RIP 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $750 $3,933 18,000 8,217 $22,766 $22,910 2,484 14,700 $0 $4,318 0 $0 $0 0 0 $44,000 $54,078 SB1 SCC 0 0 $0 $0 0 13,040 $0 $33,345 0 69,232 $0 $76,824 0 2,559 $0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $195,000 SHOPP 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $853 0 9,851 $0 $11,000 0 11,000 $0 $1,947 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $34,651 LOCAL: $0 91000100 TransNet -MC 54,704 54,704 $9,013 $3,979 4,138 9,321 $1,396 $1,505 559 1,564 $140 $1,580 0 1,511 $0 $645 0 63 $0 $0 0 0 $69,950 $74,872 $63,674 $63,674 $19,996 $11,861 $5,818 $27,016 $2,316 $40,056 $18,584 $89,987 $22,906 $112,314 $2,484 $29,770 $0 $6,910 $0 $63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,778 $381,651 TOTAL: 6 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1200509 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: CAL09 Project Manager: Arturo Jacobo Project Name: I-5 HOV: San Elijo Bridge Replacement PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6816 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Construct one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction, soundwalls, bike trail, a multi- Construction of bridge and HOV lanes is 30 percent complete. Design of the bike trail use facility, and replace the San Elijo Lagoon bridge. and multi-use facility is 45 percent complete. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Final Environmental Document N/A N/A Ready to Advertise Jan-16 Jan-16 On I-5 from Lomas Santa Fe Drive to Birmingham Drive. Begin Construction Dec-16 Dec-16 Open to Public Sep-20 Jul-21 Construction Complete Nov-25 Dec-26 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $784 $784 $782 $816 $805 $926 $504 $800 $720 $350 $85 $13 $15 $11 $13 $11 $13 $11 $12 $10 $0 $1 $3,733 $3,733 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Design 5,362 5,362 638 288 133 483 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,133 6,133 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 243 243 1,212 767 1,331 1,776 1,310 1,310 801 801 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,897 4,897 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total SANDAG $6,389 $6,389 $2,632 $1,871 $2,269 $3,185 $1,814 $2,110 $1,521 $1,151 $85 $13 $15 $11 $13 $11 $13 $11 $12 $10 $0 $1 $14,763 $14,763 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 30,242 30,242 6,565 3,265 2,717 6,092 275 200 800 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $40,599 40,599 Right-of-Way Support 4,593 4,593 2,691 1,000 426 2,117 88 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $7,798 7,798 Right-of-Way Capital 10,212 10,212 5,034 1,260 7,481 9,255 500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $23,227 23,227 Construction Support 2,301 2,301 10,638 7,320 10,737 14,445 9,453 12,973 4,957 3,572 2,207 772 485 65 275 65 275 65 325 50 0 25 $41,653 41,653 Construction Capital 39,433 39,433 51,322 49,900 57,670 58,413 38,751 48,651 30,120 26,673 6,274 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 900 0 0 $227,470 227,470 Total Caltrans $86,781 $86,781 $76,250 $62,745 $79,031 $90,322 $49,067 $64,412 $35,877 $31,045 $8,481 $1,272 $1,485 $1,065 $1,275 $1,065 $1,275 $1,065 $1,225 $950 $0 $25 $340,747 $340,747 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $93,170 $93,170 $78,882 $64,616 $81,300 $93,507 $50,881 $66,522 $37,398 $32,196 $8,566 $1,285 $1,500 $1,076 $1,288 $1,076 $1,288 $1,076 $1,237 $960 $0 $26 $355,510 $355,510 TransNet Pass-Through $42,178 $42,178 $0 ($126) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,178 $42,052 TN AC Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $15,884 $0 $20,000 $0 ($13,884) $0 ($22,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: CMAQ $25,175 $25,175 $0 $0 $47,835 $55,785 $30,358 $41,648 $23,185 $29,329 $157 $722 $0 $1,065 $0 $1,065 $0 $1,065 $0 $950 $0 $25 $126,710 $156,829 RSTP 2,948 2,948 $5,882 $9,962 46,260 36,187 $24,125 $14,125 9,138 2,012 $250 $250 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $88,603 $65,484 STATE: $0 $0 STIP-RIP 8,701 8,701 $10,120 $15,600 25,880 30,880 $12,431 $18,051 1,950 2,850 $300 $300 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $59,382 $76,382 LOCAL: $0 $0 91000100 TransNet -MC 48,567 48,567 $2,637 $63 1,676 4,279 $2,397 $2,698 1,416 1,151 $7 $13 0 11 $0 $11 0 11 $0 $10 0 1 $56,700 $56,815 91000100 TransNet -MC AC 7,779 7,779 $60,243 $38,991 (40,351) (33,624) ($18,925) ($10,000) (8,746) (3,146) $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $93,170 $93,170 $78,882 $64,616 $81,300 $93,507 $50,386 $66,522 $26,943 $32,196 $714 $1,285 $0 $1,076 $0 $1,076 $0 $1,076 $0 $960 $0 $26 $331,395 $355,510 TOTAL: 2-1200509 Report Printed7 on 13 Att 1, Exhibit B - FY 2019 Program Budget Amendments Danjou/619-688-0262 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1200510 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: CAL09 Project Manager: Arturo Jacobo Project Name: I-5 HOV: Carlsbad PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6816 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Construct one High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction and Progress to Date: soundwalls. Design is 20 percent complete. The project is on hold until funding for design phase is identified. The anticipated expenditure plan in FY 19 is for efforts to secure state and/or federal funding. Design is 20 percent complete. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed On I-5 from Palomar Airport Road to north of SR 78. Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Final Environmental Document N/A N/A Ready to Advertise TBD Apr-21 Begin Construction TBD Oct-21 Open to Public TBD Dec-23 Construction Complete TBD Jun-27 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $4 $4 $0 $0 $3 $4 $4 $54 $54 $73 $70 $448 $438 $442 $432 $230 $236 $2 $5 $2 $15 $2 $1,261 $1,261 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total SANDAG $4 $4 $0 $0 $3 $4 $4 $54 $54 $73 $70 $448 $438 $442 $432 $230 $236 $2 $5 $2 $15 $2 $1,261 $1,261 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 310 310 0 0 0 370 370 5,350 5,350 4,970 4,970 75 75 225 225 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 $11,350 11,350 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 600 600 350 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,000 1,000 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 600 600 385 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,000 1,000 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 2,500 2,050 0 100 0 350 0 $18,600 18,600 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 36,000 35,000 36,000 35,000 20,450 21,510 200 380 200 1,160 200 $94,050 94,050 Total Caltrans $310 $310 $0 $0 $0 $370 $370 $5,415 $5,415 $7,270 $7,270 $44,810 $43,810 $44,225 $43,225 $23,000 $23,610 $200 $480 $200 $1,510 $200 $126,000 $126,000 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $314 $314 $0 $0 $3 $374 $374 $5,469 $5,469 $7,343 $7,340 $45,258 $44,248 $44,667 $43,657 $23,230 $23,846 $202 $485 $202 $1,525 $202 $127,261 $127,261 TransNet Pass-Through $310 $310 $0 $0 $0 $159 $0 $610 $0 $738 $0 $949 $0 $750 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $310 $5,016 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: CMAQ 0 0 $0 $0 0 340 $0 $4,900 0 5,474 $0 $11,545 0 8,225 $0 $837 0 200 $0 $200 0 200 $0 $31,921 STATE: STIP-RIP 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 900 $0 $33,000 0 33,000 $0 $22,163 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $89,063 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet -MC 314 314 $0 $0 3 34 $0 $569 0 969 $0 $713 0 3,442 $0 $230 0 2 $0 $2 0 2 $317 $6,277 $314 $314 $0 $0 $3 $374 $0 $5,469 $0 $7,343 $0 $45,258 $0 $44,667 $0 $23,230 $0 $202 $0 $202 $0 $202 $317 $127,261 TOTAL: 8 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1207802 Corridor Director: Allan Kosup RTIP Number: CAL277 Project Manager: Karen Jewel Project Name: I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6803 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Final environmental document for high-occupancy vehicle/managed lanes direct Project study report complete. Environmental phase to begin in fiscal year 2019. connectors at SR 78 and I-15 for northbound-to-westbound and eastbound-to-southbound traffic. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Proposed On SR 78 and I-15 from Nordahl Road to West Valley Parkway. Draft Environmental Document Nov-21 Final Environmental Document Apr-22 Ready to Advertise TBD Begin Construction TBD Open to Public TBD Construction Complete TBD SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $5 $0 $21 $30 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total SANDAG $5 $0 $46 $55 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $126 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $811 $0 $2,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,811 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $811 $0 $2,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,811 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $816 $0 $2,046 $3,055 $1,010 $1,010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,937 TransNet Pass-Through $811 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $811 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL STATE: STIP-RIP $0 $0 $2,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet-MC 816 0 46 55 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 937 $816 $0 $2,046 $3,055 $1,010 $1,010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,937 TOTAL: 9 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1212501 Corridor Director: Gustavo Dallarda RTIP Number: CAL68 Project Manager: Andrew Rice Project Name: SR 94/SR 125 South to East Connector PM Phone Number: (619) 688-3284 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Design of southbound SR 125 to eastbound SR 94 direct connector. Environmental document is complete. Design to begin in fiscal year 2019. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Proposed On SR 94 and SR 125 from Lemon Avenue to Bancroft Drive. Draft Environmental Document Feb-15 Final Environmental Document Dec-15 Ready to Advertise Dec-22 Begin Construction TBD Open to Public TBD Construction Complete TBD SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $32 $0 $25 $32 $22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111 Environmental Document 1,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,528 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total SANDAG $1,560 $0 $25 $32 $22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,639 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $5,894 ($619) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,275 Design 0 0 2,500 3,200 2,248 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,948 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 1,378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,378 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $7,272 ($619) $2,500 $3,200 $2,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,601 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $8,832 ($619) $2,525 $3,232 $2,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,240 TransNet Pass-Through $894 ($619) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL STATE: SHA $26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26 STIP-ADPE 0 0 2,500 3,200 2,248 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,948 TCRP 6,352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,352 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet-MC 2,454 -$619 25 $32 22 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 1,914 $8,832 ($619) $2,525 $3,232 $2,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,240 TOTAL: 10 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1239812 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: SAN29 Project Manager: Tim DeWitt Project Name: Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 PM Phone Number: (619) 699-1935 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Final environmental document, design, and right-of-way activities for 1.9 miles of Draft environmental document is complete. Design is 30 percent complete. double-track, curve straightening, and new signals. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed On Coastal Rail Corridor from mile post (MP) 251 near I-805 to MP 253 near Draft Environmental Document Nov-16 Nov-16 Miramar Road. Final Environmental Document Jul-18 Jul-18 Ready to Advertise Jan-21 Jan-21 Begin Construction N/A TBD Open to Public N/A TBD Close-Out N/A TBD SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $1,785 $1,785 $60 $50 $100 $100 $100 $100 $5 $15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050 $2,050 Environmental Document 2,834 2,834 61 51 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,900 2,900 Design 2,597 2,597 180 75 2,860 2,965 2,940 2,940 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,777 8,777 Right-of-Way Support 206 206 20 20 80 80 170 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 476 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,250 0 3,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 30 30 11 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 41 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 195 195 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 195 Total SANDAG $7,453 $7,453 $332 $197 $3,240 $3,365 $3,210 $14,460 $205 $3,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,440 $29,440 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $7,453 $7,453 $332 $197 $3,240 $3,365 $3,210 $14,460 $205 $3,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,440 $29,440 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: 75470001 FRA-PRIIA $3,102 $3,102 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,102 $3,102 STATE: 82500001 SB1-LPP 0 0 0 0 860 860 860 860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,720 1,720 83010001 STIP-IIP 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 SB1 TCEP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,875 0 2,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet-MC 2,351 2,351 332 197 2,380 2,505 2,350 5,725 205 1,340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,618 12,118 $7,453 $7,453 $332 $197 $3,240 $3,365 $3,210 $14,460 $205 $3,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,440 $29,440 TOTAL: 11 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1239816 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: SAN183 (part of SAN114) Project Manager: Tim DeWitt Project Name: Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track PM Phone Number: (619) 699-1935 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Construct 0.8 miles of double-track and a new bridge over Batiquitos Lagoon. Project designed to 60 percent. Ready to negotiate GMP after 90 percent design and environmental permits obtained. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed On coastal rail corridor over Batiquitos Lagoon from Mile Post (MP) 234.5 to MP 235.5. Draft Environmental Document Apr-14 Apr-14 Final Environmental Document Jul-14 Jul-14 Ready to Advertise Jan-17 Jan-17 Begin Construction Sep-19 Sep-20 Open to Public Sep-21 Sep-22 Construction Complete Sep-22 Sep-23 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $1,231 $1,231 $300 $80 $700 $715 $300 $715 $178 $665 $80 $665 $20 $227 $0 $20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,809 $4,318 Environmental Document 3,163 3,163 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,206 3,163 Design 3,516 3,516 1,095 178 1,786 1,400 928 1,394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,325 6,488 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 20 0 23 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 43 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 Construction Support 59 59 0 61 0 0 1,554 0 5,680 6,189 1,694 7,336 0 750 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,987 14,645 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 111 Communications 16 16 90 0 90 0 0 35 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 111 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 501 4,000 Total SANDAG $7,985 $7,985 $1,558 $319 $3,148 $2,115 $2,782 $2,346 $5,858 $8,884 $1,774 $10,031 $20 $977 $0 $270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,125 $32,927 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 656 656 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 656 656 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 34,940 20,275 3,619 26,161 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,559 51,436 Total Caltrans $656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $0 $34,940 $20,275 $3,619 $26,161 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,215 $52,092 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $8,641 $7,985 $1,558 $319 $3,148 $2,115 $9,782 $2,346 $40,798 $29,159 $5,393 $36,192 $20 $5,977 $0 $270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,340 $85,019 TransNet Pass-Through $656 $656 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,126 $656 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: 72340001 FTA 5307 CA-95-X129 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 STATE: 82500001 SB1-LPP 0 0 0 0 786 786 3,964 464 5,970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,720 1,250 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet-MC 3,641 3,641 1,558 319 2,362 1,329 4,264 1,882 6,148 1,432 80 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,073 8,603 $8,641 $8,641 $1,558 $319 $3,148 $2,115 $8,228 $2,346 $12,118 $1,432 $80 $0 $20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,793 $14,853 TOTAL: 12 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1239818 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: SAN246 Project Manager: Linda Culp Project Name: Signal Respacing and Optimization PM Phone Number: (619) 699-6957 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Design of rail signals at key locations along the Los Angeles - San Diego - San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor within San Design is 10 percent complete. Diego County to increase service efficiency. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed Along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Diego County. Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Final Environmental Document N/A N/A Ready to Advertise Jun-20 Jun-20 Begin Construction N/A Sep-20 Open to Public N/A Dec-21 Construction Complete N/A May-22 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $80 $80 $80 $80 $0 $70 $0 $30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $160 $260 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 500 500 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 560 Design 0 0 0 0 305 305 745 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 1,050 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,475 0 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,125 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 6,315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,315 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 Communications 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 0 800 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 1,550 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $8,355 $0 $7,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $17,900 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $8,355 $0 $7,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $17,900 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: 82500001 SB1 LPP $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $500 $500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 STATE: 85170001 TIRCP 0 0 0 0 500 0 500 0 0 8355 0 7545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 15,900 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet -MC 0 0 0 0 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,000 $1,500 $1,000 $0 $8,355 $0 $7,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $17,900 TOTAL: 13 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1280516 Corridor Director: Gustavo Dallarda RTIP Number: CAL502 Project Manager: Andrew Rice Project Name: I-805 North Aux Lanes PM Phone Number: (619) 688-3284 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Design of one northbound and one southbound auxiliary lane at Governor Drive. Final Environmental Document completed under CIP 1280503. Design to begin in fiscal year 2019. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Proposed Along I-805 from SR 52 to Nobel Drive. Draft Environmental Document N/A Final Environmental Document N/A Ready to Advertise Jul-20 Begin Construction TBD Open to Public TBD Construction Complete TBD SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $0 $0 $25 $15 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $25 $15 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 2,500 1,500 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,200 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $2,500 $1,500 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,200 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $2,525 $1,515 $202 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,242 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL STATE: STIP-ADPE $0 $0 $2,500 $1,500 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,200 LOCAL: 91000100 TransNet-MC 0 0 25 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 $42 $0 $0 $2,525 $1,515 $202 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,242 TOTAL: 14 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1223081 Corridor Director: Linda Culp RTIP Number: SAN232 (Part of SAN227) Project Manager: Alison Moss Project Name: North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: University Bikeway PM Phone Number: (619) 595-5354 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Scope: Design is 30 percent complete. Complete final design for a 2.5-mile on-street protected bikeway. Construction of a 2.5-mile on-street protected bikeway. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed In the City of San Diego communities of City Heights and Eastern Area on University Avenue between Winona Avenue and Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A 70th Street. Final Environmental Document Jun-18 Jun-18 Ready to Advertise Aug-20 Feb-20 Begin Construction TBD Jun-20 Open to Public TBD Dec-21 Construction Complete TBD Dec-22 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $17 $17 $35 $35 $25 $25 $25 $40 $15 $25 $0 $20 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117 $171 Environmental Document 28 28 102 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $130 130 Design 0 0 78 78 400 400 200 213 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $691 691 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 500 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 640 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 4,000 0 706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 5,706 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Communications 0 0 20 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $30 30 Project Contingency 0 0 10 10 60 60 38 38 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $108 208 Total SANDAG $45 $45 $245 $245 $495 $495 $263 $1,391 $28 $4,575 $0 $816 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076 $7,576 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $45 $45 $245 $245 $495 $495 $263 $1,391 $28 $4,575 $0 $816 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076 $7,576 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL State: 85170001TIRCP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100 $0 $4,575 $0 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,872 Local: 91000100 TransNet-BPNS 45 45 245 245 495 495 263 291 28 0 0 619 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,076 1,704 $45 $45 $245 $245 $495 $495 $263 $1,391 $28 $4,575 $0 $816 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076 $7,576 TOTAL: 15 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1201101 Corridor Director: Mario Orso RTIP Number: V11 Project Manager: Jacqueline Appleton-Deane Project Name: SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry PM Phone Number: (619) 491-3080 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Design and right-of-way for four-lane toll highway from SR 125 to proposed Port of Entry (POE), including Design and right-of-way were complete on four-lane highway from SR 125 to Enrico Fermi the proposed Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) and POE at the Mexico border. Drive. Design for four-lane toll highway from Enrico Fermi Drive to the POE is 95 percent Construction of Siempre Viva Interchange, CVEF, POE, and tolling system. Prepare engineering studies for complete. Design of the POE is 10 percent complete. The studies for the POE and tolling the Otay Mesa East POE and tolling system. systems are 60 percent complete. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed On new alignment from SR 125 to the U.S.-Mexico Border. Draft Environmental Document Apr-11 Apr-11 Final Environmental Document Mar-12 Mar-12 Ready to Advertise Jul-13 Jul-13 Begin Construction N/A Aug-20 Open to Public N/A Aug-22 Construction Complete N/A Dec-23 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $1,615 $1,615 $522 $522 $600 $200 $227 $87 $0 $257 $0 $33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,964 $2,714 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Design 1,896 1,896 1,599 1,599 1,372 1,372 3,000 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $7,867 7,867 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 234 234 234 234 650 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,118 868 Communications 192 192 108 108 230 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $530 530 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total SANDAG $3,937 $3,937 $2,463 $2,463 $2,852 $2,202 $3,227 $3,087 $0 $257 $0 $33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,479 $11,979 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 16,440 16,440 6,490 5,670 7,298 8,118 4,500 4,500 1,411 1,411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $36,139 36,139 Right-of-Way Support 3,003 3,003 835 735 1,400 1,500 189 689 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $5,427 5,927 Right-of-Way Capital 20,869 20,869 68,395 68,395 6,577 6,227 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $95,841 95,841 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 14,300 0 20,850 33,351 16,250 16,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $52,600 49,899 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 85,000 0 144,700 222,100 105,087 114,487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $340,787 336,587 Total Caltrans $40,312 $40,312 $75,720 $74,800 $22,475 $15,845 $103,989 $5,539 $166,961 $256,862 $121,337 $131,035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $530,794 $524,393 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $44,249 $44,249 $78,183 $77,263 $25,327 $18,047 $107,216 $8,626 $166,961 $257,119 $121,337 $131,068 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $543,273 $536,372 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,027 $6,027 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,027 $6,027 Caltrans Pass-Through $1,579 $1,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,579 $1,579 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: 74030001 ITS - SANDAG $264 $264 $50 $50 $125 $125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $439 $439 74040001 CBI - SANDAG 1,470 1,470 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $1,470 $1,470 CBI - Caltrans 40,312 40,312 $75,720 $74,800 1,198 2,118 $189 $189 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $117,419 $117,419 STATE: 83010001 STIP - SANDAG 109 109 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $109 $109 TCEP 0 0 $0 $0 0 4,510 $0 $5,350 0 16,208 $0 $16,100 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $42,168 LOCAL: 0 91000100 TransNet -Border 1,138 1,138 $0 5,850 5,800 $0 $50 0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $6,988 $6,988 91000100 TransNet-MC 956 956 $2,413 $2,413 974 974 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $4,343 $4,343 $44,249 $44,249 $78,183 $77,263 $8,147 $13,527 $189 $5,589 $0 $16,208 $0 $16,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,768 $172,936 TOTAL: 16 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1390506 Corridor Director: Mario Orso RTIP Number: CAL38C Project Manager: Ismael Salazar Project Name: SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound PM Phone Number: (619) 688-6766 Connector PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Construct SR 125/905 southbound to westbound freeway grade-separated interchange Design of project was initiated in August 2017. Design is 10 percent complete. connector. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Proposed At SR 125/905 Interchange Draft Environmental Document N/A Final Environmental Document N/A Ready to Advertise Aug-19 Begin Construction Mar-20 Open to Public Feb-22 Construction Complete Oct-24 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $0 $0 $40 $38 $138 $134 $2 $2 $1 $0 $0 $355 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $40 $38 $138 $134 $2 $2 $1 $0 $0 $355 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 857 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,857 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 530 2,335 2,110 10 10 5 0 0 5,000 Construction Capital 0 0 0 3,245 11,500 11,150 100 50 0 0 0 26,045 Total Caltrans $0 $857 $4,000 $3,775 $13,835 $13,260 $110 $60 $5 $0 $0 $35,902 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $857 $4,040 $3,813 $13,973 $13,394 $112 $62 $6 $0 $0 $36,257 SBX Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $1,325 $3,870 $3,720 $100 $50 $0 $0 $0 $9,065 Caltrans RE Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL FEDERAL: DEMO $0 $857 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,857 SB1-TCEP 0 0 0 2,450 9,965 9,540 10 10 5 0 0 $21,980 LOCAL: 93140001 SBX Toll Revenues 0 0 40 1,363 4,008 3,854 102 52 1 0 0 $9,420 $0 $857 $4,040 $3,813 $13,973 $13,394 $112 $62 $6 $0 $0 $36,257 TOTAL: 17 FY 19 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1146600 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: SAN115 Project Manager: Angela Anderson Project Name: San Onofre to Pulgas Double Track, Phase 2 PM Phone Number: (619) 699-6934 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Scope: Progress to Date: Convert 2.6 miles of single-track to double-track and install new signals. Construct new/replacement bridges at MP 260.4, Phase 2 design is 95 percent complete. 259.6, 259.1, and 258.6. Construct new water/sewer facilities for City of San Diego between Friars Road and SR 52. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed Project Limits: Draft Environmental Document N/A Phase 2 double track from CP Don at MP 216.5 to CP Pulgas at MP 218.1 at Camp Pendleton. Final Environmental Document Apr-12 Ready to Advertise Dec-19 Begin Construction Jul-20 Open to Public Jul-22 Construction Complete Jul-23 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250 $0 $950 $0 $920 $0 $200 $0 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,370 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 1,000 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 40 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 2,850 0 2,300 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 5,450 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,500 0 9,200 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 19,700 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 40 Communications 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 40 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 600 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 1,400 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350 $0 $14,060 $0 $13,080 $0 $1,500 $0 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,040 CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) TASK PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350 $0 $14,060 $0 $13,080 $0 $1,500 $0 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,040 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL STATE: 85130001 Prop-1B Intercity Rail $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350 $0 $14,060 $0 $13,080 $0 $1,500 $0 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350 $0 $14,060 $0 $13,080 $0 $1,500 $0 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,040 TOTAL: 18 Exhibit C WORK ELEMENT: 3102200 NEW - NCTD Comprehensive Operations Analysis AREA OF EMPHASIS: Regional Planning Project Expenses Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Years Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Total Actual Budget Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $3,066 $3,000 $6,066 Indirect Pass-Through to Other $0 $0 $0 $181,103 $137,831 $318,934 Agencies TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $184,169 $140,831 $325,000 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total Years 2021 FTA 5304 Strategic $0 $0 $0 $184,169 $140,831 $325,000 Partnerships Transit TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $184,169 $140,831 $325,000 Note: In-kind match of $65,000 is being provided by NCTD. OBJECTIVE The North County Transit District (NCTD) will prepare a Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA) - an in-depth study designed to identify strengths, areas for improvements, and provide suggestions to improve efficiency and increase usage. NCTD's COA will result in "street-ready" service recommendations that optimize the integration of bus and rail services operated by NCTD that will guide service plans for the next 10 years. PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS N/A JUSTIFICATION This study is being prepared in response to NCTD's recent ridership experience, which is consistent with national trends of declining ridership. The goal in optimizing the rail and bus network will be to increase ridership and improve productivity measures. SANDAG received a Caltrans Planning Grant for this study. 19 PROJECT MANAGER: Danielle Kochman, Land Use / Transportation Planning Department COMMITTEE(S): Transportation Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): Regional Short-Range Transit Planning Task Force PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 15 Task Project Initiation and Management Description: Product: Kick-off meeting notes, Request for Proposals and executed consultant contract, Technical Advisory Committee, and Inventory of Relevant Plans and Data. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 2 25 Task Public and Stakeholder Outreach Description: Product: Public Involvement Plan, project website, public workshops and open houses, and stakeholder interviews Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 3 9 Task Technical Data Review Description: Product: Technical memorandum summarizing existing studies, plans, and data Completion 2/28/2019 Date: 4 23 Task Existing Service Conditions Description: Product: Technical memorandum summarizing the existing NCTD system. Completion 5/31/2019 Date: 5 11 Task Travel and Trip Demand Description: Product: Technical memorandum summarizing travel demand analysis Completion 5/31/2019 Date: 6 12 Task Develop Network Alternatives Description: Product: Technical memorandum presenting transit network recommendations and associated impacts. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 20 7 5 Task Fiscal Management Description: Product: Invoices and quarterly reports Completion 6/30/2019 Date: FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 22 Task Develop Network Alternatives Description: Product: Technical memorandum presenting transit network recommendations and associated impacts. Completion 8/31/2019 Date: 2 14 Task Develop an Implementation and Financial Plan Description: Product: Implementation Plan detailing recommended phasing for preferred network alternative scenario and 10-Year Financial Plan detailing cost estimates and funding sources Completion 9/30/2019 Date: 3 14 Task Title VI Analysis Description: Product: Title VI Analysis Document Completion 10/31/2019 Date: 4 9 Task Project Initiation and Management Description: Product: Kick-off meeting notes, Request for Proposals and executed consultant contract, Technical Advisory Committee, and Inventory of Relevant Plans and Data. Completion 12/31/2019 Date: 5 13 Task Public and Stakeholder Outreach Description: Product: Public workshops and open houses, and NCTD Board Member participation. Completion 12/31/2019 Date: 21 6 23 Task Prepare Draft and Final Plan Description: Product: Draft Plan, Final Plan and presentation materials Completion 12/31/2019 Date: 7 5 Task Fiscal Management Description: Product: Invoices and quarterly reports Completion 2/28/2020 Date: 22 WORK ELEMENT: 3102300 NEW - The Future of Mobility: Analyzing the Impact of Ride-hailing on CA Comm AREA OF EMPHASIS: Regional Planning Project Expenses Prior Years FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Budget Total Actual Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $27,439 $17,706 $45,145 Indirect Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $96,044 $60,000 $156,044 Contracted Services $0 $0 $0 $660,621 $129,690 $790,311 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $784,104 $207,396 $991,500 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior Years FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total 2021 SB1 Sustainable $0 $0 $0 $722,025 $190,975 $913,000 Communities Grant California State DMV $0 $0 $0 $62,079 $16,421 $78,500 Vehicle Registration Fee TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $784,104 $207,396 $991,500 Note: In-kind match of $83,563 will be provided by SCAG and MTC. OBJECTIVE The objective of The Future of Mobility: Analyzing the Impact of Ride-hailing on California Communities is to build on work established by the California's four largest MPOs under the Future Mobility Research Program (FMRP) to conduct a survey of ride-hailing activity in the San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco Bay Area regions. This grant-funded statewide effort will study the transportation, environmental, and social equity impacts of ride-hailing services, such as Lyft and Uber. PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS In 2016, SANDAG partnered with SCAG, MTC and SACOG to form the FMRP. To date, the FMRP has collaboratively funded three task orders related to planning for, and evaluating the impacts of, emerging transportation technologies. JUSTIFICATION This comprehensive outreach effort will enable MPOs to develop policies that guide ride- hailing services in support of goals established in Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies. Additionally, the study will enable the incorporation of 23 ride-hailing travel behavior into regional modeling tools, helping MPOs to better forecast the impacts of ride-hailing services. PROJECT MANAGER: Antoinette Meier, Operations Department COMMITTEE(S): Transportation Committee, Regional Planning Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council, Regional Planning Technical Working Group PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 5 Task Description: Project and Grant Management Product: Quarterly progress reports Completion Date: 6/30/2019 2 10 Task Description: Develop a stakeholder outreach strategy for each region that outlines how key stakeholders will be engaged throughout the project. The outreach strategy will also baseline data needs respective to the demographics of each region Product: Stakeholder outreach strategy Completion Date: 10/31/2018 3 35 Task Description: Design survey instrument; develop sampling plan, recruitment strategy and outreach materials; deliver recruitment training. Product: Ride-hailing survey instrument; sampling and recruitment plans; recruitment training and outreach materials Completion Date: 2/1/2019 4 50 Task Description: Conduct survey outreach per the recruitment methodology and sampling plans for the San Diego region, Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area regions. Product: Report that summarizes survey outreach, data collection and survey results Completion Date: 6/30/2019 FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 5 Task Description: Project and Grant Management Product: Quarterly progress reports Completion Date: 6/30/2020 2 40 Task Description: Conduct survey post-processing. Develop data files and a data dictionary. Product: Data files and a data dictionary Completion Date: 10/1/2019 3 55 Task Description: Conduct a ride-hailing impact analyses that covers social equity, safety, VMT, and GHG impacts. develop recommendations for how ride-hailing data may be used to help inform regional planning, future infrastructure 24 investments and other mobility, safety and social equity considerations. Product: Ride-hailing Impact Analyses and Final Findings Report Completion Date: 12/31/2019 25 WORK ELEMENT: 3201600 NEW - Regional Collaboration to Advance Transportation System Resiliency AREA OF EMPHASIS: Regional Planning Project Expenses Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Years Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Total Actual Budget Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $3,119 $6,881 $10,000 Indirect Contracted Services $0 $0 $0 $55,000 $10,000 $65,000 Pass-Through to Other $0 $0 $0 $63,000 $112,000 $175,000 Agencies TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $121,119 $128,881 $250,000 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total Years 2021 Public Transportation $0 $0 $0 $121,119 $128,881 $250,000 Account - Adaptation Planning Grant TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $121,119 $128,881 $250,000 Note: In-kind match of $40,000 will be provided by San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative OBJECTIVE The objective of this grant-funded work element is to partner with the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative to complete a regional adaptation needs assessment, prepare a transportation asset risk assessment, facilitate collaboration on sea-level rise and transportation planning, and provide technical assistance on climate adaptation and resiliency to the 19 local jurisdictions in the San Diego region. Emphasis in 2019 will be to design the needs assessment and begin work on the transportation asset risk assessment. PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS This is a new project. 26 JUSTIFICATION This project will inform local, regional, and statewide planning at the nexus of transportation and climate adaptation; strengthen on-going partnerships across sectors; build capacity within local jurisdictions to plan for climate impacts; and allow for coordination with other regions across the State. PROJECT MANAGER: Allison Wood, Land Use / Transportation Planning Department COMMITTEE(S): Regional Planning Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): Shoreline Preservation Working Group, Regional Planning Technical Working Group PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 5 Task Kickoff project with Caltrans; provide project management and Description: administration; prepare invoices and progress reports. Product: Meeting notes; invoice packages and quarterly reports. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 2 40 Task Design regional adaptation needs assessment; engage local Description: leaders and organizations. Product: Needs assessment methodology Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 3 25 Task Use FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool (VAST) to Description: analyze risks for transportation assets under future sea-level rise; conduct stakeholder outreach on analysis Product: VAST Excel spreadsheet; meeting notes Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 4 10 Task Leverage regional partnerships to share lessons learned through Description: San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative network meeting, sea- level rise working group, and sustained engagement at other regional dialogues. Product: Materials from up to 2 network meetings; materials from up to 4 working group meetings; meeting notes/documentation from other meetings. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 5 20 Task Provide technical assistance to local governments via a Regional Description: Resilience Hub, maintain website and prepare monthly newsletter with up-to-date information on climate adaptation; prepare a regional factsheet describing adaptation efforts in the San Diego region; represent the San Diego region in statewide 27 meetings and/or conferences, including the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA). Product: Documentation of technical assistance; periodic website updates and monthly newsletters; regional factsheet; documentation of up to 3 statewide meetings attended; up to 2 quarterly San Diego region updates for ARCCA. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 40 Task Engage local leaders and organizations in regional needs Description: assessment; hold stakeholder workshop; summarize adaptation planning needs in a final report. Product: Materials from stakeholder workshop; summary report of needs assessment results Completion 3/31/2020 Date: 2 25 Task Use FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool (VAST) to Description: analyze risks for transportation assets under future sea-level rise; conduct stakeholder outreach on analysis; prepare risk assessment tables. Product: VAST Excel spreadsheet; meeting notes; risk assessment tables. Completion 6/30/2020 Date: 3 20 Task Provide technical assistance to local governments via a Regional Description: Resilience Hub, maintain website and prepare monthly newsletter with up-to-date information on climate adaptation; prepare a regional factsheet describing adaptation efforts in the San Diego region; represent the San Diego region in statewide meetings and/or conferences, including the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA). Product: Documentation of technical assistance; periodic website updates and monthly newsletters; regional factsheet; documentation of statewide meetings attended; quarterly San Diego region updates for ARCCA. Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 4 5 Task Provide project management and administration; prepare Description: invoices and progress reports. Product: Meeting notes; invoice packages and quarterly reports. 28 Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 5 10 Task Leverage regional partnerships to share lessons learned through Description: San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative network meeting, sea-level rise working group, and sustained engagement at other regional dialogues. Product: Materials from network meetings; materials from working group meetings; meeting notes/documentation from other meetings. Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 29 WORK ELEMENT: 3301100 NEW - Planning for Future Coastal Rail Trail Segments AREA OF EMPHASIS: Project Implementation Project Expenses Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Total Years Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Actual Budget Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $67,289 $45,001 $112,290 Indirect Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $6,250 $5,000 $11,250 Contracted Services $0 $0 $0 $75,889 $100,000 $175,889 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $149,428 $150,001 $299,429 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total Years 2021 SB1 Sustainable $0 $0 $0 $132,289 $132,796 $265,085 Communities Grant TransNet $0 $0 $0 $17,139 $17,205 $34,344 Bicycle/Pedestrian Program TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $149,428 $150,001 $299,429 OBJECTIVE From July 2018 to June 2021, the City of Encinitas, North County Transit District, California Coastal Commission, and other project partners, will collaborate to develop a feasibility and implementation plan for the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) segments in the City of Encinitas. This project provides conceptual alignments for safe and attractive bikeway and pedestrian facilities for all abilities, which will make biking and walking a viable mode of travel. It is a regional goal to complete these segments in the near-term phase of a larger multi-modal program of highway, rail and active transportation improvements for the North Coast Corridor. PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS Construction on the first segment of the Coastal Rail Trail in the City of Encinitas, just south of the study area, began in FY 2018 and is expected to the open to the public in FY 2019. 30 JUSTIFICATION The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is a 44-mile bicycle and pedestrian bikeway network along the San Diego coast. The City of Encinitas has six miles of planned CRT, and this project focuses on the remaining 4.7 miles of the CRT needed to complete the network. The remaining CRT segments are envisioned adjacent to or within the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN Corridor) or nearby Coast Highway 101. It is a regional goal to complete this facility as it is vital to the overall regional network of bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to employment centers, housing, regional destinations, and public transit. PROJECT MANAGER: Linda Culp, Land Use / Transportation Planning Department COMMITTEE(S): Transportation Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): None PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 25 Task Review of past studies and public outreach Description: Product: Annotated exec summary of past studies, public meeting notices, comment records Completion 2/28/2019 Date: 2 25 Task Project initiation Description: Product: Meeting agendas and notes, procurement procedures and contract Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 3 50 Task Evaluation of Potential CRT Conceptual Alignments Description: Product: Conceptual alignment maps, planning matrix, network plan Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 31 FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 10 Task Review of past studies and public outreach Description: Product: Annotated executive summary of past studies and public meeting notices Completion 1/31/2020 Date: 2 50 Task Evaluation of Potential CRT Conceptual Alignments Description: Product: Conceptual alignment maps, planning matrix, network plan Completion 3/31/2020 Date: 3 5 Task Project development team meetings Description: Product: Meeting agendas Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 4 30 Task Implementation and next steps Description: Product: Draft and final reports Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 5 5 Task Progress reports and invoicing Description: Product: Quarterly reports and invoices Completion 4/28/2021 Date: 32 WORK ELEMENT: 3321800 NEW - Planning for Operations of Mobility Hubs AREA OF EMPHASIS: Project Implementation Project Expenses Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Years Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Total Actual Budget Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $4,548 $5,000 $9,548 Indirect Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $10,213 $30,213 Contracted Services $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $91,639 $291,639 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $224,548 $106,852 $331,400 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total Years 2021 FHWA Strategic $0 $0 $0 $203,272 $96,728 $300,000 Partnership for Sustainable Transportation California State DMV $0 $0 $0 $21,276 $10,124 $31,400 Vehicle Registration Fee TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $224,548 $106,852 $331,400 Note: In-kind match of $48,500 will be provided by the City of Chula Vista OBJECTIVE This project will develop a business plan for operating a Mobility Hub in the Chula Vista portion of the San Diego Regional Proving Ground. The Mobility Hub will feature shared, electric, connected and autonomous vehicle technologies that will help to inform public policy, long- range planning and investment strategies that guide future deployment of these technologies in the region. PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS In 2017 SANDAG, in partnership with the City of Chula Vista and Caltrans, was designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as an Autonomous Vehicle Proving Ground. In 2018, SANDAG completed a Regional Mobility Hub Strategy. 33 JUSTIFICATION This project would leverage the region's national designation as an Autonomous Vehicle Proving Ground and advance the Regional Mobility Hub Strategy by demonstrating how shared mobility services and technology can increase access to transit, improve safety, and expand mobility choices. PROJECT MANAGER: Antoinette Meier, Operations Department COMMITTEE(S): Transportation Committee, Regional Planning Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): Regional Planning Technical Working Group, San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council, Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, Social Services Transportation Advisory Council PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 5 Task Project management and grant administration Description: Product: Quarterly progress reports Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 2 30 Task Develop and implement a strategy for community outreach and Description: stakeholder engagement Product: Outreach, engagement, and education Plan Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 3 25 Task Collect and analyze baseline data related to existing travel Description: behavior, transportation services and infrastructure within the project area. Conduct a social equity analysis Product: Technical memorandum summarizing data collection, needs assessment, and social equity recommendations Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 4 15 Task Define the specific problem statements that the Mobility Hub Description: pilot project will seek to address and develop project goals Product: Problem statements and project goals Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 5 25 Task Identify the industry partners that will participate in the Mobility Description: Hub pilot project. Define partner roles and responsibilities, pilot project contributions, benefits of participation, and expectations for partners. Product: Memo describing the partnership development strategy for the mobility hub pilot project 34 Completion 6/30/2019 Date: FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 20 Task Develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for monitoring Description: pilot project progress toward and develop a mobility hub pilot project evaluation plan informed by the KPIs. Product: Key performance indicators and a project evaluation plan Completion 9/30/2019 Date: 2 75 Task Develop a plan and schedule for implementing and operating Description: the Mobility Hub pilot project in partnership with Regional Proving Ground Consortium of industry affiliates and academic partners. Product: Mobility Hub Operations and Administration Plan Completion 12/2/2019 Date: 3 5 Task Project management and grant administration Description: Product: Quarterly progress reports Completion 12/31/2019 Date: 35 WORK ELEMENT: 3331200 NEW - Regional Transportation System Management and Operations Plan AREA OF EMPHASIS: Project Implementation Project Expenses Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Multi-Year Years Actual Estimated Budget 2021 Total Actual Budget Salaries, Benefits, $0 $0 $0 $47,027 $40,473 $87,500 Indirect Contracted Services $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $150,000 $350,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $247,027 $190,473 $437,500 Multi-Year Project Funding Prior FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 - Total Years 2021 FHWA Strategic $0 $0 $0 $197,622 $152,378 $350,000 Partnership for Sustainable Transportation TransNet Major $0 $0 $0 $49,405 $38,095 $87,500 Corridors Program TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $247,027 $190,473 $437,500 OBJECTIVE The objective of this grant funded project will develop a Regional Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO) Plan for the San Diego region. TSMO seeks to optimize the performance, preserve the capacity and improve the safety and reliability of the existing transportation infrastructure. TSMO can be defined as a coordinated, multimodal, set of strategies, procedures, and activities (such as projects, programs, and services), all intended to work together as a unified system for improving mobility. Emphasis in FY 2019 will be on; 1) conducting outreach, literature review, and an inventory of the current state of practice for TSMO; 2) establish a regional TSMO vision, goals and guiding principles that facilitate a coordinated approach to planning for operations; 3) establish a performance-based operational framework that will facilitate the selection of TSMO projects. 36 PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS Received grant approval and notice to proceed from the funding agency. Project scope of work and timeline developed for project start in FY 2019. JUSTIFICATION Currently, planning and operations of transportation networks/programs follow a stove pipe approach. This project will formalize coordinated operations between SANDAG's transportation partners by completing a TSMO Plan for the San Diego Region. TSMO focuses on establishing the institutional commitments for making sure that all systems including, for example, traffic signals, ramp meters, transit services, and transportation demand managements services work together to; 1) serve a complete trip regardless of owns or operates them, and; 2) maximize the use of existing transportation infrastructure PROJECT MANAGER: Alex Estrella, Operations Department COMMITTEE(S): Transportation Committee WORKING GROUPS(S): Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council PRODUCTS, TASKS, AND SCHEDULES FOR FY 2019 Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 20 Task Literature Review and Case Study Research Description: Product: Summary of Existing Policies, Programs, and Plans Completion 3/29/2019 Date: 2 10 Task Project Initiation and Project Administration and Management Description: Product: Grant kick-off meeting, executed consultant contracts, quarterly reports. Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 3 50 Task Development TSMO Vision Description: Product: TSMO Performance Based Operational Framework Report Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 4 20 Task Initiate Development of a Regional TSMO Plan Description: Product: TSMO Plan Framework, TSMO Business Case and Communications Plan Completion 6/30/2019 Date: 37 FUTURE ACTIVITIES Task % of Task Description / Product / Schedule No. Effort 1 10 Task Project Initiation and Project Administration and Management Description: Product: Quarterly Reports, Invoices, Meeting Summaries Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 2 90 Task Develop a Regional TSMO Plan Description: Product: TSMO Plan Framework, TSMO Business Case and Communications Plan Completion 2/28/2021 Date: 38 Attachment 2 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program: Amendment No. 13 On September 23, 2016, the Board of Directors adopted the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), a multibillion dollar program of projects funded by federal, state, TransNet local sales tax, and other local funding sources covering the period FY 2017 to FY 2021. Committed funding for regionally significant projects, capacity increasing projects, and projects with federal and/or TransNet funds are required to be programmed in the RTIP. SANDAG processes amendments to the RTIP generally on a quarterly basis and occasionally on a more frequent basis as circumstances arise. Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 RTIP is being proposed to incorporate changes related to state grant awards announced between March and May 2018 by Caltrans, the California State Transportation Agency, and the California Transportation Commission. The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee is scheduled to review the TransNet-funded projects included in Amendment No. 13 on June 13, 2018. Consistent with SANDAG’s Public Participation Policy, SANDAG transmitted the draft Amendment No. 13 to interested parties for a 15-day public review period on May 18, 2018, closing on June 11, 2018. Exhibit B (Table 1) includes updates that have been made since the draft amendment was released for public review to more accurately reflect the addition of new funding sources on six projects. Discussion Below is an outline of the various funding sources in the RTIP and a summary of the proposed amendments for each project. Funding Acronyms Advanced Construction AC TransNet – Major Corridor MC TransNet – Bicycle, Pedestrian and TransNet – MC Advanced BPNS MC AC Neighborhood Safety Construction SB 1 Solutions for Congested CCP Regional Improvement Program RIP Corridors Program Federal Congestion Mitigation and Federal Regional Surface CMAQ RSTP Air Quality Transportation Program State Transportation Federal Railroad Administration FRA-PRIAA STIP Improvement Program SB 1 Trade Corridor Enhancement High Priority Project HPP TCEP Program Transit and Intercity Rail Capital SB 1 Local Partnership Program LPP TIRCP Program 39 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Projects Interstate 5 – High Occupancy Vehicle/Managed Lanes (CAL09) – This amendment includes several revisions related to funding in total and between fiscal years. In particular, this amendment adds CCP funds of $195 million. The programmed total increases to $906,247,000, with an overall project total cost of $946,521,000. State Route 125/905 Southbound to Westbound Connector (CAL38C) – This amendment proposes to add TCEP and local toll funds and reduce federal HPP funds for design and construction. Total programmed amount increases to $36,257,000. State Route 94/125 Southbound to Eastbound Connector (CAL68) – This amendment proposes to add STIP-RIP AC and TransNet funds to complete design of the project. Total programmed amount increases to $16,240,000. Interstate 15/State Route 78 HOV Connectors (CAL277) – This amendment proposes to carry this project over from the 2014 RTIP and add STIP-RIP AC and TransNet funds to complete the environmental document for the project. Total programmed amount increases to $7,937,000. Interstate 805 North Aux Lanes (CAL502) – This amendment proposes to add STIP-RIP AC and TransNet funds to complete design on a new project. Total programmed amount is $4,242,000. Advanced Technology Corridors at Border Ports of Entry Pilot Project (CAL503) – This amendment proposes to add TCEP funds to a new project for design and construction. Total programmed amount is $11,969,000. SANDAG Projects Plan, Program, and Monitor (SAN07A) – This amendment proposes to increase STIP-RIP State Cash in FY 2019 and add new funds to FYs 2020 and 2021 for planning, programming, and monitoring activities in the region. Total programmed amount increases to $6,025,000. Sorrento to Miramar Double Track/Realign (SAN29) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet and add LPP and TCEP funds to the project to fund design and right-of-way for Phase 2. Total programmed amount increases to $74,581,000. Eastbrook to Shell Double Track (SAN64) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet and add LPP funds to the project to fund final design. Total programmed amount increases to $10,920,000. Grouped Projects for Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of Track Structures, Track and Track bed in Existing Rights-of-Way: Coastal Rail Corridor (SAN114) – This amendment proposes to reduce TransNet and FRA-PRIAA savings from the environmental phase of work and add LPP funding to complete final design for the San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track projects. Total programmed amount decreases by $22,350,000, bringing the new total to $191,566,000. San Onofre to Pulgas Double Track (SAN115) – This amendment proposes to carry this project over from the 2012 RTIP and add STIP Interregional Improvement Program AC funds to the project to fund final design and construction of Phase 2. Total programmed amount increases to $67,736,000. 40 Inland Rail Trail (SAN153) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet BPNS and add Regional Active Transportation Program funds to the project to fund final design and construction of a segment of work in the City of Vista. Total programmed amount increases to $42,785,000. Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – North Park/Mid-City Bikeways (SAN227) – This amendment proposes to increase TransNet – BPNS and add TIRCP funds for construction of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements along University Avenue. Total programmed amount increases to $29,141,000. Signal Respacing and Optimization (SAN246) – This amendment proposes to add LPP and TIRCP funds to a new project for design and construction. Total programmed amount is $17,900,000. Various Agencies Projects State Route 11 (V11) – This amendment proposes to revise fund types to add TCEP funds, increase TransNet - Border funds, and decrease Local funds. Total programmed amount remains $681,747,000. Fiscal Constraint Analysis Federal regulations require the 2016 RTIP to be a revenue-constrained document with programmed projects based upon available or committed funding and/or reasonable estimates of future funding. Funding assumptions generally are based upon: (1) authorized or appropriated levels of federal and state funding from current legislation; (2) conservative projections of future federal and state funding based upon a continuation of current funding levels; (3) the most current Board approved (February 2018) short-term revenue forecasts for the TransNet Program; and (4) the planning and programming documents of the local transportation providers. Tables 2a through 2c (Exhibit C) provide updated program summaries, including a comparison from the prior approved version. Based upon the analysis, the projects contained within the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 13, are reasonable when considering available funding sources. Air Quality Analysis On September 23, 2016, SANDAG found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/State Implementation Plan (SIP) and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy for the San Diego region. All the required regionally significant capacity increasing projects were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and the 2016 RTIP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly approved the conformity determination for the 2016 RTIP and the conformity redetermination for the Regional Plan on December 16, 2016. The proposed amendment does not reflect a change in the design, concept, or scope of the project or the conformity analysis years as modeled for the regional emissions analysis of the 2016 RTIP. Projects in the 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 13 meet the conformity provisions of the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.122(g)). All capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 13 were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the Regional Plan and 2016 RTIP. All other projects not included in the air quality conformity analysis are either non-capacity increasing or are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity in accordance with the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR §93.126). SANDAG followed interagency 41 consultation procedures to determine which projects are exempt. Amendment No. 13 does not interfere with the timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures. The 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 13, remains in conformance with the SIP. Performance Management Analysis The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) included provisions for the establishment of a performance and outcome-based program, which includes national performance goals for the Federal-Aid Highway Program in several areas. Signed into law on December 5, 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act continues MAP-21’s overall performance Management Approach. These changes have been incorporated into 23 CFR Part 450. FHWA and the FTA may only determine conformity of a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) that has been developed according to the provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. The 2016 RTIP Amendment 13 has been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions and requirements of 23 CFR Part 450. In particular, this amendment includes projects which support SANDAG’s effort to reach the established safety targets. Attached Exhibits: Exhibit A Draft Resolution No. RTC-2018-07: Approving Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Exhibit B Table 1: 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment No. 13 Exhibit C Tables 2a-2c: Fiscal Constraint Analysis 42 Exhibit A 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. RTC-2018-07 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO THE 2016 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 23, 2016, SANDAG adopted the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and found the 2016 RTIP in conformance with the applicable State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and with the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), in accordance with California law; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2016, the United States Department of Transportation determined the 2016 RTIP and the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) in conformance to the applicable SIPs in accordance with the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93; and WHEREAS, Caltrans and SANDAG have requested various changes to existing projects for inclusion into the 2016 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the metropolitan transportation planning regulations per 23 CFR Part 450; and WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan, which conforms to all applicable SIPs and to the emissions budgets from the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2013, and from the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County, which were found adequate for transportation conformity purposes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2008, and from the 2004 Revision to California SIP for Carbon Monoxide, for Ten Federal Planning areas which was approved as a SIP revision in 2006; and WHEREAS, the regionally significant, capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the Regional Plan and the 2016 RTIP; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 RTIP continues to provide for timely implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQS/SIP for air quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTIP projects and programs meet all the federally required emissions budget targets; and 43 WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 13 satisfy the transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(g) and all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450 including the establishment of performance management targets for safety performance measures for all public roads in the planning region; and WHEREAS, all other projects in Amendment No. 13 are either non-capacity increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 13 are fiscally constrained; and WHEREAS, the projects in 2016 RTIP Amendment No. 13 are consistent with the Public Participation Policy adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors, does hereby approve Amendment No. 13 to the 2016 RTIP; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that SANDAG finds the 2016 RTIP, including Amendment No. 13, is consistent with the Regional Plan, is in conformance with the applicable SIPs, and with the 2016 RAQS for the San Diego region, is consistent with SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures, and is consistent with SANDAG Public Participation Policy, as amended. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chair of the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission [Seal] Attest: Secretary of the Board of Directors of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission 44 Exhibit B Table 1 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL09 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Interstate 5 - HOV/Managed Lanes EA NO: 235800 PPNO: 0615CDE, 0615 Project Description: Interstate 5 - construct High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Managed Lanes RTP PG NO: A-16, B-30 on I-5; construct Phase 1: Construct HOV from Lomas Santa Fe to SANDAG ID: 1200511, Birmingham and replace San Elijo Bridge; Construct Phase 2: construct 1200501, 1200504, 1200510, HOV lanes from Birmingham to SR78; Construct Phase 3: Soundwalls 1200509 on private property from Manchester to SR-78. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the CON phase Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding RT:5 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $946,521 Open to Traffic: Phase 1: Sep 2020 Phase 2: Sep 2021 Phase 3: Sep 2021 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $168,841 $120,585 $20,884 $3,220 $8,727 $3,357 $12,068 $122,608 $36,718 $9,515 TransNet - MC AC $0 $145,251 $(64,648) $(31,089) $(49,514) CBI $416 $416 $416 CMAQ $94,477 $44,467 $40,967 $9,044 $31,649 $8,800 $54,028 CMAQ - Conversion $101,790 $25,907 $26,368 $49,514 $3,600 $6,034 $92,156 Earmark Repurposing $1,220 $1,220 $1,220 IM $3,886 $3,886 $3,886 RSTP $66,693 $36,071 $30,622 $31,987 $4,084 $30,622 RSTP - Conversion $43,461 $38,741 $4,720 $9,004 $34,457 STP $751 $751 $751 SB1 - CCP $195,000 $195,000 $195,000 STIP-RIP AC $229,084 $68,943 $71,078 $89,063 $9,561 $219,523 STIP-RIP State Cash $628 $628 $628 TOTAL $906,247 $275,747 $238,944 $12,264 $203,727 $74,434 $101,131 $215,310 $55,636 $635,301 * $5.324M programmed in CAL46A; $299K provided outside of the RTIP; $12.035M programmed in CAL443; $22.616M programmed in CAL468; Demo IDs CA653, CA676 repurposed to FHWA transfer number CAT 16-070 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-12 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $157,841 $120,585 $20,884 $6,444 $5,616 $3,125 $1,187 $115,673 $35,653 $6,515 TransNet - MC AC $0 $129,812 $(9,044) $(65,978) $(43,934) $(10,855) CBI $416 $416 $416 CMAQ $73,287 $32,321 $40,967 $23,515 $8,800 $40,972 CMAQ - Conversion $73,488 $9,044 $26,547 $27,042 $10,855 $73,488 Earmark Repurposing $1,220 $1,220 $1,220 IM $3,886 $3,886 $3,886 RSTP $63,180 $32,557 $30,622 $40,991 $6,106 $16,083 RSTP - Conversion $56,323 $39,431 $16,892 $56,323 STP $751 $751 $751 STIP-RIP AC $112,943 $68,943 $44,000 $9,561 $103,382 STIP-RIP State Cash $628 $628 $628 TOTAL $543,963 $260,087 $223,505 $6,444 $5,616 $3,125 $45,187 $196,641 $50,559 $296,763 Page 1 Thursday, May 31, 2018 45 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL38C RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: SR125/905 Soutbound to Westbound Connector EA NO: 28883 RTP PG NO: A-7; A-19 Project Description: Connector from southbound SR 125 to westbound SR 905 - Design and SANDAG ID: 1390506 construct southbound SR 125 connector to westbound SR 905. Toll EARMARK NO: CA612, HPP Credits will be used to match federal funds for the PE phase 2813 Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding RT:905 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $36,257 Open to Traffic: Jan 2022 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON HPP $4,857 $4,857 $4,857 SB1 - TCEP $21,980 $21,980 $21,980 Loc Funds - Toll Funds $9,420 $40 $1,363 $8,017 $40 $9,380 TOTAL $36,257 $4,857 $40 $23,343 $8,017 $4,897 $31,360 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-04 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON HPP $5,441 $5,441 $5,441 TOTAL $5,441 $5,441 $5,441 MPO ID: CAL68 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: SR 94/125 Southbound to Eastbound Connector EA NO: 14665 PPNO: 0356 Project Description: Interchange on SR 94 at SR 94 and SR125 Milepost begins at 1 ends at RTP PG NO: A-6 2 - near La Mesa and Lemon Grove on SR 125 from Mariposa St to SR SANDAG ID: 1212501 94 and on SR 94 from SR 125 to Bancroft Dr. - Construct freeway connector, replace and widen bridges Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding RT:94 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $16,240 Open to Traffic: Dec 2025 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,914 $1,835 $25 $32 $22 $1,914 STIP-RIP AC $7,948 $7,948 $7,948 State Cash $26 $26 $26 TCRP $6,352 $6,352 $5,000 $1,352 TOTAL $16,240 $8,213 $7,973 $32 $22 $14,862 $1,378 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-08 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $3,101 $3,101 $3,101 State Cash $1,642 $1,642 $1,642 TCRP $6,352 $6,352 $5,000 $1,352 TOTAL $11,095 $11,095 $8,101 $2,994 Page 2 Thursday, May 31, 2018 46 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL277 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors EA NO: 2T240 RTP PG NO: A-19 Project Description: SR-78 from Post Mile 15.49 to R16.6 I-15 from Post Mile R30.63 to SANDAG ID: 1207802 R31.56 - preliminary engineering for northbound I-15 to westbound SR 78 and eastbound SR 78 to southbound I-15 HOV connectors and operational improvements Change Reason: Carry over from 14-30, Add new funding source RT:15 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Engineering studies Est Total Cost: $340,000 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $937 $816 $46 $55 $20 $937 STIP-RIP AC $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 TOTAL $7,937 $816 $7,046 $55 $20 $7,937 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 14-30 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $817 $817 $817 TOTAL $817 $817 $817 MPO ID: CAL502 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: I-805 North Aux Lanes EA NO: 43039 PPNO: 1285 Project Description: I-805 from Just South of Governor Drive to Just North of Governor Drive SANDAG ID: 1280516 Milepost begins at 24 ends at 25 (1 miles) - along I-805 from SR-52 to Nobel Drive. Construct one northbound (.5 miles) and one southbound (.4 miles) auxiliary lane Change Reason: New Project RT:805 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Hazard elimination program Est Total Cost: $4,242 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $42 $25 $15 $2 $42 STIP-RIP AC $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 TOTAL $4,242 $4,225 $15 $2 $4,242 Page 3 Thursday, May 31, 2018 47 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) Caltrans MPO ID: CAL503 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Advanced Technology Corridors at Border Ports of Entry Pilot Project EA NO: 42750 Project Description: Various - In San Diego County and Imperial County on various routes at various locations, Install Intelligent Technology Statewide Border Wait Time System, Implement a fiber optic cable network to facilitate an advanced traveler information and border wait time system connecting the entire San Diego and Imperial border network. SD County: Route 11,905, 125, & 5 IMP County: Route 7, 111, 186, & 188 Change Reason: New Project RT:11 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Safety - Non signalization traffic control and operating Est Total Cost: $39,176 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON SB1 - TCEP $11,969 $2,317 $9,652 $2,317 $9,652 TOTAL $11,969 $2,317 $9,652 $2,317 $9,652 * $27.207M of SHOPP programmed on CAL472 Page 4 Thursday, May 31, 2018 48 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN07A RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Plan, Program & Monitor SANDAG ID: 150000, 31020, 33210 Project Description: Regionwide - planning, programming and monitoring activities related to transportation funding Change Reason: Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Other - Non construction related activities Est Total Cost: $6,025 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON STIP-RIP State Cash $6,025 $1,105 $1,105 $1,605 $1,105 $1,105 $6,025 TOTAL $6,025 $1,105 $1,105 $1,605 $1,105 $1,105 $6,025 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-00 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON STIP-RIP State Cash $3,315 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $3,315 TOTAL $3,315 $1,105 $1,105 $1,105 $3,315 MPO ID: SAN29 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Sorrento to Miramar Double Track/Realign EA NO: R690SA PPNO: 7301 Project Description: Phase 1: Control Point (CP) Pines (Mile Post (MP) 249.8) to CP Miramar RTP PG NO: A-5 (MP 251)Phase 2: CP Miramar (MP 251) to CP Cumbres (MP 252.9) - SANDAG ID: 1239801, realign curve and construct second main track; construction for Phase 1 1239812 only Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $74,581 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $43,259 $33,222 $270 $332 $2,380 $6,850 $205 $7,422 $7,476 $28,361 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $3,102 $3,102 $3,102 Prop 1B - TCIF $10,800 $10,800 $10,800 SB1 - LPP Formula $1,720 $1,720 $1,720 SB1 - TCEP $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 STIP-IIP PTA $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 STIP-IIP State Cash $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 TOTAL $74,581 $52,324 $270 $2,052 $2,380 $17,350 $205 $17,444 $17,976 $39,161 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $37,639 $33,222 $963 $2,264 $1,190 $5,773 $3,080 $28,786 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $3,102 $3,102 $3,102 Prop 1B - TCIF $10,800 $10,800 $10,800 STIP-IIP PTA $3,900 $3,900 $3,900 STIP-IIP State Cash $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 TOTAL $56,741 $52,324 $963 $2,264 $1,190 $14,075 $3,080 $39,586 Page 5 Thursday, May 31, 2018 49 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN64 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Eastbrook to Shell Double Track PPNO: 2074 SANDAG ID: 1239809 Project Description: On coastal rail corridor from Control Point (CP) Eastbrook near Harbor Drive to CP Shell near Surfrider Way - in Oceanside, design to add a new 0.6 mile section of double track, add new signals and replace the 700-foot long San Luis Rey River Bridge over San Luis Rey River Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $10,920 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $5,000 $2,504 $2 $144 $1,251 $1,100 $5,000 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $3,920 $3,920 $3,920 SB1 - LPP Formula $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 TOTAL $10,920 $6,424 $2 $2,144 $1,251 $1,100 $10,920 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $3,000 $2,504 $15 $481 $3,000 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $3,920 $3,920 $3,920 TOTAL $6,920 $6,424 $15 $481 $6,920 Page 6 Thursday, May 31, 2018 50 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN114 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of Track Structures, SANDAG ID: 1239803, Track, and Trackbed in Exisiting Rights-of-Way: Coastal Rail Corridor 1239805, 1239810, 1239813, 1239814, 1239815, 1239816 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Parts 93.126 and 93.127 Exempt Tables 2 and 3 categories: rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing right-of-way (non-capacity increasing)- from Oceanside to San Diego along the Coastal Rail Corridor; design track improvements Change Reason: Add new funding source, Reduce funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $191,566 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $75,677 $12,273 $19,471 $9,118 $15,477 $18,037 $1,301 $75,677 CMAQ $64,154 $64,154 $64,154 FTA 5307 $1,765 $1,765 $1,765 FTA 5339 $5,321 $5,321 $5,321 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,085 $7,085 $7,085 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $3,360 $3,360 $3,360 RSTP $25,136 $10,136 $15,000 $25,136 CAP-TRADE $4,017 $4,017 $4,017 SB1 - LPP Formula $4,750 $3,500 $1,250 $4,750 Local Funds $301 $301 $301 TOTAL $191,566 $104,094 $23,789 $27,618 $16,727 $18,037 $1,301 $191,566 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-12 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $102,562 $12,273 $19,420 $9,262 $24,212 $31,503 $5,892 $102,562 CMAQ $64,154 $64,154 $64,154 FTA 5307 $1,765 $1,765 $1,765 FTA 5339 $5,321 $5,321 $5,321 Fed Rail Admin (FRA-PRIIA) $7,300 $7,300 $7,300 Other Fed - ARRA - FRA $3,360 $3,360 $3,360 RSTP $25,136 $10,136 $15,000 $25,136 CAP-TRADE $4,017 $4,017 $4,017 Local Funds $301 $301 $301 TOTAL $213,916 $104,309 $23,738 $24,262 $24,212 $31,503 $5,892 $213,916 Page 7 Thursday, May 31, 2018 51 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN115 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: San Onofre to Pulgas Double Track PPNO: 2190 SANDAG ID: 1144200, Project Description: From CP at San Onofre MP 212 to CP Pulgas at MP 218.1 - design a 1144600 passing track on the LOSSAN Corridor; this project will provide 5.8 miles of second main track and will include signals, retaining walls and bridge replacements and a universal crossover near CP San Onofre - does not add additional transit service Change Reason: Carry over from 12-30 Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Track rehabilitation in existing right of way Est Total Cost: $67,736 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON RSTP $299 $299 $299 Prop 1B - Intercity Rail $30,000 $30,000 $3,146 $26,854 STIP-IIP AC $37,437 $7,397 $1,177 $28,863 $5,377 $32,060 TOTAL $67,736 $37,696 $1,177 $28,863 $8,822 $58,914 * funding shown in FY20/21 are scheduled for allocation in FY21/22 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 12-30 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON RSTP $299 $299 $299 Prop 1B - Intercity Rail $30,000 $30,000 $3,146 $26,854 STIP-IIP AC $7,397 $7,397 $4,200 $3,197 TOTAL $37,696 $37,696 $7,645 $30,051 Page 8 Thursday, May 31, 2018 52 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN153 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: The Inland Rail Trail PPNO: 7421W RTP PG NO: A-19 Project Description: On and along rail corridor from North Melrose Drive in Oceanside to North SANDAG ID: 1223023 Pacific Street in San Marcos - plan, design, and construct 7 miles of Class 1 Bike Path and Class II - Bike Lane that is located adjacent to and within the NCTD Railroad right-of-way Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $56,500 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $9,349 $3,656 $3,654 $302 $296 $1,440 $1,171 $1,917 $6,261 ATP - R $5,603 $500 $5,103 $500 $5,103 STIP-RIP AC $16,322 $16,322 $16,322 STIP-RIP STP TE $1,414 $1,414 $1,414 STIP-RIP State Cash $2,298 $2,298 $183 $2,115 Local Funds $1,080 $1,080 $1,080 TDA - Bicycles $6,719 $6,719 $2,025 $4,694 TOTAL $42,785 $31,489 $3,654 $302 $796 $6,543 $6,373 $1,917 $34,495 * $1.461M of BTA programmed under County of San Diego CNTY78 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-06 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $7,768 $3,656 $3,812 $300 $875 $1,917 $4,976 STIP-RIP AC $16,322 $16,322 $16,322 STIP-RIP STP TE $1,414 $1,414 $1,414 STIP-RIP State Cash $2,298 $2,298 $183 $2,115 Local Funds $1,080 $1,080 $1,080 TDA - Bicycles $6,719 $6,719 $2,025 $4,694 TOTAL $35,601 $31,489 $3,812 $300 $5,577 $1,917 $28,107 Page 9 Thursday, May 31, 2018 53 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) San Diego Association of Governments MPO ID: SAN227 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Grouped Projects for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - North Park/Mid-City SANDAG ID: 1223020, Bikeways 1223078, 1223079, 1223080, 1223081, 1223082 Project Description: Projects are consistent with 40 CFR Part 93.126 Exempt Table 2 categories - bicycle and pedestrian facilities (both motorized and non-motorized) Change Reason: Add new funding source, Increase funding Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Air Quality - Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Est Total Cost: $29,141 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $20,662 $1,279 $2,100 $5,178 $9,788 $1,910 $407 $20,662 SB1 - TIRCP $5,872 $5,872 $5,872 TDA - Bicycles $2,607 $2,607 $2,607 TOTAL $29,141 $3,886 $2,100 $5,178 $9,788 $7,782 $407 $29,141 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-12 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - BPNS $20,034 $1,279 $2,169 $5,525 $9,659 $1,396 $7 $20,034 TDA - Bicycles $2,607 $2,607 $2,607 TOTAL $22,641 $3,886 $2,169 $5,525 $9,659 $1,396 $7 $22,641 MPO ID: SAN246 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: Signal Respacing and Optimization SANDAG ID: 1239818 Project Description: Along the LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County - Design of rail signals at key locations along the LOSSAN Corridor within San Diego County to increase service efficiency Change Reason: New Project Capacity Status:NCI Exempt Category:Mass Transit - Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems Est Total Cost: $17,900 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - MC $1,000 $500 $500 $1,000 SB1 - LPP Formula $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 SB1 - TIRCP $15,900 $15,900 $15,900 TOTAL $17,900 $1,000 $500 $500 $15,900 $2,000 $15,900 Page 10 Thursday, May 31, 2018 54 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) Various Agencies MPO ID: V11 RTIP #:16-13 Project Title: State Route 11 EA NO: 05631 PPNO: 0999 Project Description: Not Location Specific - Construction of four-lane toll highway facility, RTP PG NO: A-6; B-5 CVEF and POE in three segments: Segment 1: SR-11/905 to Enrico SANDAG ID: 1201101 Fermi; Segment 2: SR-11 from Enrico Fermi to Siempre Viva; Segment EARMARK NO: CA393/740 3: POE from Siempre Viva to Mexico Border. Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the PE phase, Toll Credits will be used to match federal funds for the ROW phase Change Reason: Add new funding source, Revise funding between fiscal years RT:11 Capacity Status:CI Exempt Category:Non-Exempt Est Total Cost: $681,747 Open to Traffic: Phase 1: Apr 2016 Phase 2: Nov 2021 Phase 3: Nov 2022 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Border $6,988 $1,138 $722 $5,128 $2,360 $4,628 TransNet - MC $4,343 $68 $888 $1,527 $1,860 $2,483 $1,860 CBI $127,139 $78,789 $45,000 $3,350 $29,698 $94,091 $3,350 HPP $800 $800 $800 INFRA $49,278 $49,278 $49,278 ITS $439 $439 $439 Prop 1B - TCIF $74,155 $71,625 $2,530 $74,155 SB1 - TCEP $42,168 $9,860 $32,308 $8,510 $1,350 $32,308 STIP-IIP NHS $6,882 $6,882 $6,882 STIP-IIP Prior State Cash $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 STIP-IIP State Cash $919 $919 $919 Local Funds $363,436 $5,120 $2,727 $355,589 $7,547 $300 $355,589 TOTAL $681,747 $164,722 $47,026 $57,407 $21,968 $35,035 $355,589 $64,838 $102,229 $514,680 PROJECT LAST AMENDED 16-12 TOTAL PRIOR 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 PE RW CON TransNet - Border $6,488 $1,138 $722 $4,628 $1,860 $4,628 TransNet - MC $4,343 $68 $888 $1,527 $1,860 $2,483 $1,860 CBI $127,139 $78,789 $45,000 $3,350 $29,698 $94,091 $3,350 HPP $800 $800 $800 INFRA $49,278 $49,278 $49,278 ITS $439 $439 $439 Prop 1B - TCIF $74,155 $71,625 $2,530 $74,155 STIP-IIP NHS $6,882 $6,882 $6,882 STIP-IIP Prior State Cash $5,200 $5,200 $5,200 STIP-IIP State Cash $919 $919 $919 Local Funds $406,104 $406,104 $5,657 $400,447 TOTAL $681,747 $164,722 $47,026 $57,407 $412,592 $53,938$100,579 $527,230 Page 11 Thursday, May 31, 2018 55 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) RTIP Fund Types Federal Funding ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Federal Stimulus Program) BIP/CBI Border Infrastructure Program/Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality DEMO-Sec 117/STP Surface Transportation Program under FHWA Administrative Program (congressionally directed appropriations) EARREPU Earmark Repurposing INFRA/FASTLANE Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant FRA-ARRA Federal Railroad Administration (Federal Stimulus) FRA-PRIIA Federal Railroad Administration Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 FTA Section 5307 Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA Section 5339 Federal Transit Administration Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Grant Program HPP High Priority Program under SAFETEA-LU ITS Intelligent Transportation System NHS National Highway System (administered by Caltrans) RSTP Regional Surface Transportation Program STP-RL Surface Transportation Program - Highway Railway Crossings Program (Section 130) TE Transportation Enhancement Program CMAQ/RSTP Conversion Reimbursement of advanced federal funds which have been advanced with local funds in earlier years State Funding ATP Active Transportation Program (Statewide and Regional) PTA Public Transportation Account SB1 - CCP Senate Bill 1 - Congested Corridors Program SB1 - TCEP Senate Bill 1 - Trade Corridor Enhancement Program SB1 - LPP Formula Senate Bill 1 - Local Parternship Formula Program SB1 - TIRCP Senate Bill 1 - Transit and Intercity Rail Program STIP-IIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program STIP-RIP State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement Program TCIF Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (State Prop. 1B) TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TCRP Traffic Congestion Relief Program Local Funding Local Funds AC Local Funds - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance local funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds TransNet-Border Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Border TransNet-BPNS Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program TransNet-MC Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Major Corridors Page 12 Thursday, May 31, 2018 56 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 13 San Diego Region (in $000s) TransNet-MC AC TransNet - Major Corridors - Advanced Construction; mechanism to advance TransNet funds to be reimbursed at a later fiscal year with federal/state funds Page 13 Thursday, May 31, 2018 57 Table 2a: Revenues San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Exhibit C 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Sales Tax $2,296,483 $549,008 $548,126 $621,451 $615,469 $591,753 $590,091 $458,388 $455,660 $550,450 $557,389 $5,064,882 $5,063,218 -- County $2,296,483 $549,008 $548,126 $621,451 $615,469 $591,753 $590,091 $458,388 $455,660 $550,450 $557,389 $5,064,882 $5,063,218 Other Local Funds $428,813 $122,100 $122,100 $84,948 $84,948 $501,109 $100,125 $90,253 $92,980 $80,956 $321,610 $1,308,179 $1,150,576 -- County General Funds -- City General Funds $287,880 $97,904 $97,904 $62,648 $62,648 $63,131 $63,131 $81,006 $81,006 $53,404 $53,404 $645,972 $645,972 LOCAL -- Street Taxes and Developer Fees $140,934 $24,196 $24,196 $22,300 $22,300 $437,978 $36,994 $9,247 $11,974 $27,552 $268,206 $662,207 $504,604 -- RSTP Exchange funds Other $103,609 $103,609 $103,609 $80,395 $80,395 $92,307 $92,347 $88,849 $90,212 $87,820 $95,837 $556,589 $566,009 Local Total $2,828,905 $774,717 $773,835 $786,793 $780,812 $1,185,169 $782,563 $637,489 $638,851 $719,227 $974,837 $6,929,650 $6,779,803 State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $147,510 $147,510 $98,533 $98,533 $160,872 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $592,280 $592,280 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $147,510 $147,510 $98,533 $98,533 $160,872 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $592,280 $592,280 SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program $610,704 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $21,930 $72,183 $44,000 $90,168 $651,622 $798,195 STIP (Including Augmentation) $568,948 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $21,930 $72,183 $44,000 $90,168 $609,866 $756,439 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 STATE Proposition 1 B $739,633 $3,224 $3,224 $2,530 $2,530 $1,319 $1,319 $716,705 $746,705 GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) $161,546 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $165,598 State Transit Assistance (e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $8,502 $8,502 $22,246 $22,246 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $170,984 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $17,497 $17,497 $17,561 $18,061 $8,314 $13,417 $3,231 $3,231 $65,481 $71,084 Other $20,746 $56,829 $56,829 $18,672 $26,892 $16,011 $224,438 $11,659 $82,319 $11,659 $37,211 $135,550 $448,435 State Total $1,973,930 $233,603 $233,603 $196,816 $205,036 $155,456 $385,208 $196,265 $344,211 $78,222 $149,942 $2,790,517 $3,291,930 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $71,578 $71,578 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $875,790 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $100,000 100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $11,383 $11,383 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5316 - Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 5317 - New Freedom 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $39,389 $39,389 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $326,988 $326,988 FEDERAL TRANSIT FEDERAL 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,648 $5,648 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $40,449 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $217,517 $217,518 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $710,716 $710,716 $2,580,010 $2,580,011 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) * $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $32,891 $34,223 $33,549 $34,223 $56,887 $504,977 $526,328 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $190,775 $45,000 $45,000 $3,350 $3,350 $239,125 $239,125 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,257 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,147 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $42,382 $44,862 $43,985 $44,862 $43,970 $645,364 $642,905 Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $52,164 $101,442 $2,312 $2,312 $9 $9 $306,450 $355,728 Federal Highway Total $1,371,187 $157,478 $156,894 $120,568 $169,846 $93,254 $91,924 $107,048 $105,497 $361,510 $383,282 $2,211,045 $2,278,630 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,264 $26,479 $26,264 FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,264 $26,479 $26,264 Federal Total $2,450,186 $321,848 $321,264 $338,085 $387,364 $310,590 $309,260 $324,384 $322,833 $1,072,225 $1,093,998 $4,817,534 $4,884,905 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 VE VE FINA VATI INNO Innovative Financing Total REVENUES TOTAL $7,253,022 $1,330,168 $1,328,703 $1,321,694 $1,373,211 $1,651,214 $1,477,031 $1,158,139 $1,305,896 $1,869,675 $2,218,777 $14,537,701 $14,956,639 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment *CMAQ revenues reflect updates to final apportionments for FY 2017 and a payback of borrowed apportionment to OCTA in FY 2018 58 Table 2b: Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Prior Years Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $2,828,905 $747,159 $746,278 $764,166 $758,184 $1,170,033 $767,427 $632,416 $633,779 $706,237 $961,847 $6,846,266 $6,696,420 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $147,510 $147,510 $98,533 $98,533 $160,872 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $592,280 $592,280 SHOPP (Including Augmentation) $33,819 $148,953 $148,953 $147,510 $147,510 $98,533 $98,533 $160,872 $160,872 $2,593 $2,593 $592,280 $592,280 State Transportation Improvement Program $610,704 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $21,930 $72,183 $44,000 $90,168 $651,622 $798,195 STIP (Including Augmentation) $568,948 $1,105 $1,105 $2,105 $2,105 $1,105 $21,930 $72,183 $44,000 $90,168 $609,866 $756,439 Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior $41,756 $41,756 $41,756 Transportation Enhancement Proposition 1 A $99,698 $99,698 $99,698 Proposition 1 B * $739,633 $3,224 $3,224 $2,530 $2,530 $1,319 $1,319 $716,705 $746,705 STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) $197,000 $197,000 $197,000 Highway Maintenance (HM) $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 $1,951 Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) * $161,546 $4,052 $4,052 $159,246 $165,598 State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) $96,445 $12,951 $12,951 $8,502 $8,502 $22,246 $22,246 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $15,420 $170,984 $170,984 Active Transportation Program $14,340 $4,538 $4,538 $17,497 $17,497 $17,561 $18,061 $8,314 $13,417 $3,231 $3,231 $65,481 $71,084 Other $20,746 $56,829 $56,829 $18,672 $26,892 $16,011 $224,438 $11,659 $82,319 $11,659 $37,211 $135,550 $448,435 State Total $1,973,930 $233,603 $233,603 $196,816 $205,036 $155,456 $385,208 $196,265 $344,211 $78,222 $149,942 $2,790,517 $3,291,930 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program $524,273 $66,534 $66,534 $71,578 $71,578 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $71,135 $875,790 $875,790 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization $99,768 $99,768 $99,768 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) $123,331 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $593,380 $593,380 $1,066,711 $1,066,711 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants $57,734 $57,734 $57,734 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program $3,391 $3,798 $3,798 $7,189 $7,189 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program $6,806 $965 $965 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $903 $11,383 $11,383 5312 - National Research and Technology Program 5311f - Intercity Bus FEDERAL TRANSIT 5337 - State of Good Repair $130,176 $37,939 $37,939 $39,389 $39,389 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $39,828 $326,988 $326,988 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program $13,417 $4,974 $4,974 $5,648 $5,648 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $5,470 $40,449 $40,449 Other $93,839 $160 $160 $93,999 $93,999 Federal Transit Total $1,052,736 $164,370 $164,370 $217,517 $217,518 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $217,336 $710,716 $710,716 $2,580,010 $2,580,011 Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $340,096 $47,143 $47,143 $15,763 $15,763 $33,531 $32,891 $34,223 $33,549 $18,227 $56,887 $488,982 $526,328 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) $190,775 $45,000 $45,000 $3,350 $3,350 $239,125 $239,125 Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) Federal Lands Highway Ferry Boat Discretionary High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo $113,582 $5,841 $5,257 $1,307 $1,307 $120,731 $120,147 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $43,955 $11,930 $11,930 $3,317 $3,317 $1,755 $1,755 $14,733 $14,733 $282,416 $282,416 $358,105 $358,105 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $1,885 $4,750 $4,750 $3,842 $3,842 $12,585 $12,585 $13,231 $13,231 $36,293 $36,293 National Scenic Byways Program Public Lands Highway FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Railway (Section 130) Recreational Trails Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $432,594 $39,148 $39,148 $40,826 $40,826 $43,072 $42,382 $19,166 $6,994 $3,250 $3,250 $578,056 $565,193 Transportation Improvements (TI) Other $248,299 $3,667 $3,667 $52,164 $101,442 $2,312 $2,312 $9 $9 $306,450 $355,728 Federal Highway Total $1,371,187 $157,478 $156,894 $120,568 $169,846 $93,254 $91,924 $81,352 $68,506 $303,902 $342,562 $2,127,741 $2,200,919 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) $26,264 $26,479 $26,264 Other FRA Federal Railroad Administration Total $26,264 $26,479 $26,264 Federal Total $2,450,186 $321,848 $321,264 $338,085 $387,364 $310,590 $309,260 $298,688 $285,842 $1,014,618 $1,053,277 $4,734,231 $4,807,194 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 INN TIVE TIVE OVA FINA Innovative Financing Total $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 $537,484 PROGRAM TOTAL $7,253,022 $1,302,611 $1,301,145 $1,299,067 $1,350,584 $1,636,078 $1,461,894 $1,127,369 $1,263,832 $2,336,562 $2,702,552 $14,908,498 $15,333,028 Note: Highlighted sections refer to changes from prior amendment 59 * Prop IB and TRCP funds increased in Prior due to projects which had been delayed and were brought back into the RTIP Table 2c: Revenues versus Program San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (in $000s) Prior 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 TOTAL Funding Source Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Prior Current Local Total $27,558 $27,558 $22,627 $22,627 $15,136 $15,136 $5,073 $5,073 $12,989 $12,989 $83,384 $83,384 LOCAL State Highway Operations and Protection Program SHOPP (Including Augmentation) SHOPP Prior State Minor Program State Transportation Improvement Program STIP (Including Augmentation) Transportation Enhancement STIP Prior Proposition 1 A Proposition 1 B STATE GARVEE Bonds (Includes Debt Service Payments) Highway Maintenance (HM) Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) State Transit Assistance (STA)(e.g., population/revenue based, Prop 42) Safe Routes to School (SR2S) State Emergency Repair Program Other State Total 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program 5308 - Clean Fuel Formula Program 5309a - Fixed Guideway Modernization 5309b - New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) 5309c - Bus and Bus Related Grants 5310 - Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 5311c - Public Transportation on Indian Reservation 5312 - National Research and Technology Program FEDERAL TRANSIT 5337 - State of Good Repair 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilites Program Other Federal Transit Total Bridge Discretionary Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $15,995 $15,995 Coordinated Border Infrastructure (SAFETEA-LU Sec.1303) Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (SAFETEA-LU Sec. 1302) High Priority Projects (HPP) and Demo High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Highway Bridge Program (HBP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Recreational Trails Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) FEDERAL HIGHWAY FEDERAL Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $25,696 $36,991 $41,612 $40,720 $67,309 $77,712 Other Federal Highway Total $25,696 $36,991 $57,607 $40,720 $83,304 $77,712 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) FRA Other Federal Railroad Administration Total Federal Total $25,696 $36,991 $57,607 $40,720 $83,304 $77,712 TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) 60 FIN INN TIVE TIVE OVA Innovative Financing Total REVENUES - PROGRAM TOTAL $27,558 $27,558 $22,627 $22,627 $15,136 $15,136 $30,769 $42,064 $70,597 $53,710 $166,687 $161,095 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-7 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT File Number 1500300 AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE CLAIMS Introduction Recommendation SANDAG, as the designated Regional Transportation The Transportation Committee is asked to Planning Agency (RTPA), is responsible for the recommend that the Board of Directors: allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) (1) adopt Resolution Nos. 2018-23 through funds to the region’s 18 cities, County of San Diego, 2018-29, approving the FY 2019 and transit operators.1 SANDAG also is responsible for Transportation Development Act and submitting State Transit Assistance claims for North State Transit Assistance Act (STA) claims, County Transit District (NCTD).2 and FY 2018 STA State of Good Repair claim; and (2) adopt the STA findings as Discussion certified by North County Transit District. TDA Claims On February 23, 2018, the Board of Directors approved the FY 2019 TDA estimate of $147,814,661. TDA funding may be used as authorized under four separate articles of the law. Article 3 funds are designated for bicycle and pedestrian projects, Article 4 funds are used to provide general public transit services, Article 4.5 funds are designated for community transit services, and Article 8 funds support specialized services such as express bus and ferry services. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244, a transit operator can be allocated no more in TDA funding in the upcoming fiscal year than it was allocated in the current fiscal year unless SANDAG determines that the operator made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvement recommendations adopted by the Board of Directors for the current fiscal year. At its May 25, 2018, meeting, the Board of Directors made a determination that both the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements outlined for FY 2018 and approved continuation of the program in FY 2019. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the claims by article. Attachment 2 describes the transit services that the funding would support in FY 2019. 1 The Transportation Development Act provides one-quarter percent of the state sales tax for operating and capital support of public transportation systems and non-motorized transportation projects. 2 State Transit Assistance provides a second source of TDA funding for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes as specified by the Legislature. Administration and Planning TDA law (PUC 99233.2) allows SANDAG and the County of San Diego Auditor Controller’s office to claim funds to administer the program. In addition, SANDAG, as the RTPA, can claim up to three percent of the annual apportionment to conduct regional transportation planning activities. Consistent with the FY 2019 Program Budget, it is recommended that SANDAG claim $4,411,203 to carry out planning activities such as transportation analysis and modeling, economic and demographic analysis and modeling, and other related planning activities and $724,560 for TDA program administration, including the TDA Triennial Performance Audits. The County of San Diego Auditor Controller is claiming $50,000 for TDA administration costs. State Transit Assistance Claims Per STA requirements, SANDAG is responsible for submitting claims on behalf of NCTD while MTS may receive its funds directly. Of the $9,197,972 available, NCTD is requesting to use $4,770,311 available under STA for operations and $4,427,661 for capital projects. State law requires operators to meet certain qualifying criteria to determine service efficiency to use STA funds for operations. SANDAG calculated the operating qualifications and determined that NCTD would meet the criteria, thereby allowing the funds to be used for operations. NCTD also is required to affirm certain findings under the STA statute. Attachment 4 provides these findings. State of Good Repair Senate Bill 1 (2017, Beall) created the State of Good Repair (SGR) Program within the STA Account for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. At its meeting on February 23, 2018, the Board of Directors approved the project list for NCTD’s FY 2018 SGR claim, which includes the replacement of five Tier 0 and two Tier 2 COASTER locomotives with cleaner, more efficient Tier 4 locomotives that include benefits such as more efficient operations, decreased emissions, and fuel savings. Attachment 5 includes the required resolutions for the FY 2019 requested claims and Attachment 6 includes the FY 2018 STA SGR claim. Next Steps Pending approval of the TDA and STA claims by the Board of Directors, the County Auditor would disburse the TDA/STA monies in accordance with the allocation instructions from SANDAG. JOSÉ A. NUNCIO TransNet Department Director Attachments: 1. Transportation Development Act - Summary of FY 2019 Claims 2. Description of Transit Services by Articles of TDA 3. Highlights of FY 2019 CTSA Work Plan 4. NCTD STA Findings 5. Draft Resolution Nos. 2019-23 through 2019-28 for FY 2019 Claims 6. Draft Resolution No. 2018-29 for FY 2018 STA SGR Claim Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected] 2 **REVISED** Attachment 1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT SUMMARY OF FY 2019 CLAIMS Coordinated Metropolitan North County Transportation Bicycle and Transit System Transit District SANDAG Services Agency Pedestrian* County Auditor Total FY 2019 Apportionment $99,294,747 $40,341,747 $5,135,763 $139,826 $2,852,578 $50,000 $147,814,661 Prior Year Carryover 0 0 2,000,499 0 0 2,000,499 Total Available to Claim 99,294,747 40,341,747 5,135,763 139,826 2,852,578 4,853,077 50,000 147,814,661 149,815,160 FY 2019 Claims Article 3 - Non-Motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) (2,852,578)(1,852,578) (2,852,578)(1,852,578) Article 4 - General Public Transit 0 Operations (54,471,340) (29,983,335) (84,454,675) Capital (34,143,217) (3,046,856) (37,190,073) Capital Transfer to SANDAG (209,227) (492,959) (702,186) Support of ADA Operations (2,925,664) (4,196,595) (7,122,259) Administrative/Planning Transfer to SANDAG (1,901,494) (642,569) (2,544,063) Subtotal Article 4 (93,650,942) (38,362,314) (132,013,256) Article 4.5 - Community Transit Service (accessible service for the disabled) Operations (4,872,057) (1,979,433) (139,826) (6,991,316) Subtotal Article 4.5 (4,872,057) (1,979,433) (139,826) (6,991,316) Article 8 - Special Provisions Express bus (555,085) (555,085) Ferry service (216,663) (216,663) Subtotal Article 8 (771,748) (771,748) Planning/Administration Administration (724,560) (50,000) (774,560) SANDAG Regional Planning (4,411,203) (4,411,203) Subtotal Planning/Administration (5,135,763) (50,000) (5,185,763) Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,499 $0 $0 $3,000,499 *The SANDAG Board approved to set aside $1M per year for Call for Projects 3 **REVISED** Attachment 2 Description of Non-Motorized and Transit Services Claims by Articles of TDA Article 3 - Non-Motorized Claims (Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects) Article 3 claims provide for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and are allocated based on a regionwide priority list of projects. For FY 2019, there is approximately $2.853 million available for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the FY 2019 apportionment. • Approximately $853,0001,852,000 is proposed to fund the Inland Rail Trail (Capital Improvement Program [CIP] No. 1223023), which is included in the Board-approved Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program. • Of the remaining amount, $21 million represents the set-aside for the regional Active Transportation Grant Program call for projects for FY 2019 and FY 2020, consistent with Board direction. Article 4 General Public (Fixed Transit Route) Article 4 claims provide the most flexible form of revenues and can be used for any purposes necessary to develop and operate the transportation system; including operations, capital purchases, payment of bond debt, and to augment specialized services. The total Article 4 claim under MTS is $91,540,221, while the NCTD total is $37,226,786, and reflects transfers to SANDAG, as well as additional support for services provided under Article 4.5 as described below. Use of this funding is consistent with the projects proposed for funding in the FY 2019 Transit Capital Improvement Program approved by the Board of Directors at its April 27, 2018, meeting, • Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) estimates it will carry approximately 83.5 million passengers over approxiimately 20.6 million annual revenue miles, which represents a change of 2.3 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively, from estimated FY 2018. To provide these services, MTS anticipates operating revenues of about $269 million, about 2.5 percent increase from estimated FY 2018. • For the North County Transit District (NCTD), the fixed route and rail services are projected to carry approximately 10.5 million passengers over 6.2 million revenue miles, a decrease in passengers of 0.94 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively, from estimated FY 2018 figures. NCTD’s operating budget for fixed route and rail services for FY 2019 of about $91 million is an increase of 0.44 percent from estimated FY 2018. Article 4.5 Community Transit Service (Accessible Service for the Disabled) Article 4.5 funds are allocated in the San Diego region to support demand response transit services required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). SANDAG Board Policy No. 027: Transportation Development Act, requires that after allocating two percent of these funds to the Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), funds be distributed between the two transit agencies in the region based on service area population. ADA operations for MTS and NCTD also are augmented by annual transit revenues from the TransNet Program. • MTS is claiming $4,872,057 to provide operating support for the accessible paratransit services in the MTS service area, including Access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Suburban services. MTS estimates ridership of 499,368 and revenue miles of 4.4 million for FY 2019, a decrease of 2.85 percent and 2.84 percent respectively from FY 2018 estimates. 4 • NCTD is claiming $1,979,433 for operating support. NCTD anticipates carrying 187,860 passengers on 1.8 million revenue miles, a decrease of 0.1 percent from FY 2018 estimate. • Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT), as the CTSA, is claiming $139,826 to assist seniors, persons with disabilities, and social service recipients in San Diego County to meet their transportation needs. Attachment 3 provides the CTSA annual work program. Article 8 - Special Provisions (Express Bus, Ferry) MTS is the only operator that claims this article for its express bus services ($555,085), and to pass-through the funding to the City of Coronado that provides the ferry service ($216,663). The total Article 8 claim is $771,748. The MTS claim would provide operating support for premium express commuter service along the Interstate 15 corridor. Routes 280 and 290 provide service from the cities of Poway and Escondido and from the communities of Rancho Bernardo/Carmel Mountain Ranch and Rancho Peñasquitos; Mira Mesa and Sorrento Valley, and Rancho Bernardo to downtown. Ridership is projected at 286,415 passengers over 343,291 annual miles in FY 2019, representing no change from the FY 2018 estimate. 5 Attachment 3 Full Access & Coordinated Transportation, Inc. (FACT) Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for San Diego County Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19 As defined in the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act (AB 120), the CTSA is a public entity responsible for improving transportation services required by social service recipients by promoting the consolidation and coordination of social service transportation services. The scope of CTSA activities include being the regional coordinator of social service transportation information, centralized administration and dispatching, identification and consolidation of funding sources, coordinated and consolidated training programs and combined purchasing of vehicles, supplies and equipment. The CTSA works to improve dedicated transportation services for people with disabilities, senior citizens, social service agencies, health care providers, various organizations and individuals within that particular service area. The CTSA is also the planning representative of the social service transportation community and works with the region to develop updates to the Coordinated Plan. The CTSA has begun the process to update the Business Plan (2019-24 Business Plan Update) that forms the planning foundation for organizational development and the expansion of coordinated services in the region. Expenses: 1. One-call/one-click Mobility Center Maintain FACT website Maintain FACT website to keep content current, optimized for searching Use website for marketing and outreach Maintain transportation provider database Update content of the provider database on an ongoing basis Conduct outreach with potential new providers Optimize website travel planner for finding suitable transportation Telephone Referrals Respond to telephone requests for transportation information. Educate callers about transportation options from database. Provide enhanced in-person customer service where necessary to assist with ADA application process or take reservations for other providers, etc. 2. Regional Coordination Administer Council on Access and Mobility (CAM) and Other Meetings Conduct Council on Access and Mobility (CAM) meetings bimonthly, FACT Board Meetings monthly, and other meetings related to regional coordination. Continue outreach to providers: currently 30 out of 30 seats filled Represent CAM during Level 3 or higher emergencies in the Emergency Operations Center and coordinate disaster response as needed Coordinate information provision and involvement of CAM members with the County EOC to ensure effective emergency preparedness planning and compliance with State and Federal requirements Training/Workshops 1 6 Full Access & Coordinated Transportation, Inc. (FACT) Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for San Diego County Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19 Facilitate a workshop on issues of interest to CAM and partners Assist OEM to develop emergency response plan Support for grantees Provide letters of support to agencies applying for grants after verifying coordination efforts. Assist applicants in finding coordination opportunities Form partnerships to apply for grants where appropriate Offer compliance related information to grantees Coordinated Planning Provide ongoing technical assistance and support to human service transportation providers and all other interested parties to find solutions to overcome identified barriers to coordination, consolidation and collaboration Coordinate and conduct surveys, and assessments, both formal and informal, to determine stakeholder transportation needs, vehicle and other relevant resources and barriers to coordination Make presentations to stakeholder groups Evaluate coordinated programs for pilot projects leading to regional deployment Work with 211 San Diego and SANDAG to administer and implement VTCLI grant Work with Tri-City Medical Center and SANDAG to administer and implement R2W grant Maintain the FACT Board Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Market services through press releases, pamphlets, brochures, e-mail, newsletters, special informational pieces, newspaper articles, special events, workshops, and community training sessions Participation in Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Provide input for the SANDAG Coordinated Plan. 3. Management of CTSA Activities Disseminate quarterly CTSA FACT Newsletter to ensure ongoing awareness of current related events Maintain the CTSA Mailing List Complete all required reporting Maintain memberships in State and National organizations committed to coordinated transportation and non-profit corporation development: Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA); California Association for Coordinated Transportation (Cal-Act); American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Travel to CTAA, CalACT, and APTA conferences and sponsored trainings. Annually update the business plan for FACT covering the following areas: governance, regional needs assessment, integration of current CTSA work activities, technical assistance and coordination planning, information and marketing initiatives, service contracting and operations programs, policy development and advocacy, trip demand estimation and utilization projections, funding and financial projections. 2 7 Full Access & Coordinated Transportation, Inc. (FACT) Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for San Diego County Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2018-19 Maintain FACT’s staff to ensure capacity to support ongoing programs and services and expansion as per the approved Business Plan. Participate in Triennial TDA Audits 4. Grant Support Provide local match to Section 5310, Senior Mini-Grant, and other grants to support core CTSA activities. All TDA 4.5 funding for the fiscal year 2018-2019 will be used for core CTSA activities. FACT was awarded both 5310 and Senior Mini-Grant funding to provide expanded CTSA activities. 3 8 Attachment 4 WHEREAS, the North County Transit District ("Claimant') hereby affirms the certifications and required flndings as part of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and State Assistance Act (STA) Clairns for FY2019 as follows: Findino #1: The Claimant's proposed expenditures are in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Findinq #2: The Claimant is proposing a level of fare revenue sufficient to meet the fare revenue operating cost ratio requirements of Public Utilities Code (PUC) 99268.2,99268.3, 99268.5 and 99268.9, as applicable. Findinq # 3: The Claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Findinq #4: The sum of the Claimant's allocations from the STA Fund and the Local Transportation Fund do not exceed the maximum for which the Claimant is eligible. Findinq #5: Priority consíderation has been given to offsetting unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel, enhancing existing public transportation servíces, and meeting hígh-priority regional needs. Findinq #6: The Claimant has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to PUC 992M. Findino #7: The Claimant ís not prevented by a labor contract entered into after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers. Findinq #8: The Claimant has on file a certification by the Department of the Calífornia Highway Patrol verifling compliance with section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, pursuant to PUC 99251. Findinq #9: The Claimant is in compliance with the requirements of PUC 99314.6. Authorized Representative/Contact: ,?ìllr,ü1tAf" (Signature) Matthew O. Tucker (Print or type name) Executive Director (Title) 9 **REVISED** Attachment 5 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-23 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claim listed below is submitted for Fiscal Year 2019 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 99234 of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has analyzed the claim and determined that the claim conforms substantially to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; and WHEREAS, SANDAG finds the claim to be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board, pursuant to CGC 29532 and PUC 99234, does hereby approve the allocation of TDA funds for the following project in the amounts specified below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation 19011000 SANDAG (Inland Rail Trail) $853,0001,852,578 Total $853,0001,852,578 2. That the Board does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of this claim. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 10 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-24 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS ARTICLE 4 FIXED ROUTE GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants listed below have submitted claims for FY 2019 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 4, of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has analyzed the claims and determined that the claims conform substantially to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; and WHEREAS, pursuant to PUC Section 99244, SANDAG is required to annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements for the transit operators; and WHEREAS, SANDAG finds these claims for FY 2019 to be in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board, pursuant to PUC Section 99244, finds that the claimants listed below have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvement recommendations for FY 2018; 2. That the Board adopted the FY 2019 Productivity Improvement Goals set forth in Agenda Report No. 7 at the May 25, 2018, meeting; 3. That the Board, pursuant to CGC 29532, does hereby approve the allocation of TDA funds to the following claimants for purposes listed below: 11 Claim No. Claimant Allocation 19031000 Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Operating (fixed route) $54,471,340 Operating (ADA) $2,925,664 Capital $34,143,217 Total $91,540,221 19041000 North County Transit District (NCTD) Operating (fixed route) $ 29, 983,335 Operating (ADA) $4,196,595 Capital $3,046,856 Total $$37,226,786 SANDAG 19031004 Admin/Planning Transfer from MTS $1,901,494 19031004 Capital Transfer from MTS $209,227 19041002 Capital Transfer from NCTD $492,959 19041002 Admin/Planning Transfer from NCTD $642,569 Total $3,246,249 4. That the Board does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of these claims. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 12 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-25 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS ARTICLE 4.5 COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICE WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants listed below have submitted claims for FY 2019 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 4.5, of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has analyzed the claims and determined that the claims conform substantially to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, including the provision of PUC 99275.5; and WHEREAS, SANDAG finds these claims for FY 2019 to be in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board, pursuant to CGC 29532, does hereby approve the allocation of TDA funds to the following claimants for purposes listed below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation 19031001 Metropolitan Transit System Operating Total $4,872,057 19041001 North County Transit District Operating Total $1,979,433 19061000 Coordinated Transportation Service Agency Operating Total $139,826 2. That the Board does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of these claims. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-26 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS ARTICLE 8 SPECIAL PROVISIONS WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimant listed below has submitted claims for FY 2019 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 8, of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has analyzed the claims and determined that the claims conform substantially to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; and WHEREAS, SANDAG finds these claims for FY 2019 to be in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board, pursuant to CGC 29532, does hereby approve the allocation of TDA funds for costs associated with the operation of express bus services (PUC 99400.6), and the operation of commuter ferry service (PUC 99400.7) as shown below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation Metropolitan Transit System 19031002 Operating for Express Bus Service $555,085 19031003 Operating for Ferry Service $216,663 Total $771,748 2. That MTS is directed to pass-through to the City of Coronado its appropriate share of TDA funding for operation of Ferry Service; and 3. That the Board does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of these claims. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 14 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-27 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants listed below have submitted claims for FY 2019 TDA funds pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 3 (PUC 99233.1 and 99233.2), of the California Public Utilities Code (PUC); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 29532 of the California Government Code (CGC), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has determined that the claims are eligible pursuant to the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. Pursuant to CGC 29532, does hereby approve the allocation of TDA funds to the following claimants for purposes listed below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation 19021000 County Auditor $50,000 SANDAG 19051000 Administration $724,560 19051001 Regional Planning $4,411,203 Total $5,135,763 2. That the Board does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions and payment schedules to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of these claims. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018 ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 15 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-28 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2019 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE CLAIM TO THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the North County Transit District (NCTD) has filed a claim for State Transit Assistance (STA) funds in the amount of $9,197,972 for FY 2019 pursuant to Section 6730(a) of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors adopted the required findings for NCTD pursuant to Section 6754; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the above claim is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and meets the specific requirements of Section 6754 of Title 21 of the CCR; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board of Directors does hereby approve the allocation of STA to the following claimants for purposes listed below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation 19041003 NCTD Operating $4,770,311 Capital $4,427,661 Total $9,197,972 2. That the Board of Directors does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of this claim. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 16 Attachment 6 401 B Street, Suite 800 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-29 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone (619) 699-1900 Fax (619) 699-1905 sandag.org APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 2018 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE, STATE OF GOOD REPAIR CLAIM TO THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the North County Transit District (NCTD) has filed a claim for State Transit Assistance (STA) State of Good Repair (SGR) funds in the amount of $1,743,219 for FY 2018 pursuant to Section 6730(a) of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR); and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors adopted the required findings for NCTD pursuant to Section 6754; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the above claim is in substantial conformance with the provisions of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and meets the specific requirements of Section 6754 of Title 21 of the CCR; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the SANDAG Board of Directors as follows: 1. That the Board of Directors does hereby approve the allocation of STA SGR to the following claimants for purposes listed below: Claim No. Claimant Allocation 18041004 NCTD Capital $1,743,219 Total $1,743,219 2. That the Board of Directors does hereby authorize the Executive Director to prepare and transmit allocation instructions to the San Diego County Auditor as are necessary and legal for payment of this claim. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June 2018. ATTEST: CHAIR SECRETARY MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, and Mexico. 17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18-06-8 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JUNE 15, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND PROPOSED FY 2019 PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: File Number 1145000 LOS PEÑASQUITOS LAGOON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Introduction Recommendation The Transportation Committee is asked to The Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement Project is located in the City of San Diego, in the recommend that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Improvements included the replacement of four aging timber trestle bridges with Program Budget, adding $979,267 in federal and local funds to the new concrete bridges as shown in Attachment 1. Major construction started in December 2014 and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement Project (Capital Improvement completed in September 2017. Additional funds are needed for closeout and improvements requested by Program Project No. 1145000) for construction capital and support, in North County Transit District (NCTD). substantially the same form as Discussion Attachment 2. Within the project limits, NCTD has a high water detector (HWD) and positive train control (PTC) fiber optic cable. The current HWD is more than ten years old, and is located at an interior bridge only accessible by rail. Due to its advanced age and proximity to the ocean mist, the HWD often produces false alarms resulting in trains delays on the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo corridor. In 2016, NCTD requested the HWD be relocated to an area with easier access. During construction, NCTD also requested the PTC fiber optic cable within the project limits be replaced due to extreme wear. Both improvements were completed with other project funds. Finally, additional funds are needed for legal costs to resolve disputes on the project. Existing project funds have been used to date. This budget action will continue this effort but additional monies are expected to be needed in the near future. Proposed Budget Amendment At its January 19, 2017, meeting, the NCTD Board of Directors approved programming funding for costs associated with the new HWD, the new PTC fiber, the legal costs to manage the project disputes, and post-construction environmental mitigation. In late 2017 it was determined that the post-construction mitigation cost would be covered under the SANDAG Environmental Mitigation Program and are no longer part of this request. The proposed changes to the project budget, as shown in Attachment 2, would enable SANDAG to accept $979,267 from NCTD to reimburse the project for the HWD and PTC improvements and partially pay for the remaining legal work. Next Steps Pending approval by the Board of Directors, the FY 2019 Program Budget will be updated to reflect the proposed funding change. JIM LINTHICUM Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation Attachments: 1. Project Map 2. Proposed Budget Amendment for Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1145000, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement Key Staff Contacts: Jim Linthicum, (619) 699-1970, [email protected] Angela Anderson, (619) 699-6934, [email protected] 2 Attachment 1 PROJECT MAP: LOS PEÑASQUITOS LAGOON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT BR. 246.1 BR. 246.9 BR. 247.1 BR. 247.7 3 Attachment 2 FY 2019 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1145000 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: SAN163 Project Manager: Angela Anderson Project Name: Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement PM Phone Number: 619-699-6934 PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE This project will replace four aging timber trestle railway bridges. Construction is completed. Post construction mitigation on-going. Post construction mitigation on-going. PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Bridges 246.1, 246.9, 247.1, and 247.7 in the Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Draft Environmental Document Jun-10 Jun-10 Final Environmental Document Jan-11 Jan-11 Ready to Advertise Apr-14 Apr-14 Begin Construction Dec-14 Dec-14 Open to Public Apr-18 Apr-18 Close-Out Apr-18 Dec-19 SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total Administration $1,771 $212 $245 $214 $45 $656 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,853 $2,066 Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $872 $0 Design 1,256 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,281 $1,256 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Construction Support 7,215 2,043 2,000 200 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $9,458 $9,314 Construction Capital 27,430 3,942 5,472 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $31,819 $32,902 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Legal Services 101 164 187 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $315 $338 Communications 71 9 8 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $138 $79 Project Contingency 0 0 0 0 200 750 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $750 $207 Total SANDAG $37,844 $6,370 $7,912 $969 $394 $2,303 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,486 $46,162 OUTSIDE AGENCY EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Total Outside Agency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Outside Agency $37,844 $6,370 $7,912 $969 $394 $2,303 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,486 $46,162 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total FEDERAL: 74060001 FTA TIGER Grant CA-79-0003 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 FTA Section 5307 11,699 5,096 5,871 775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,570 17,570 LOCAL: 91040000 TDA 1,129 1,274 1,274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,403 2,403 91060000 NCTD 11,016 0 767 194 394 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,210 12,189 $37,844 $6,370 $7,912 $969 $394 $0 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,183 $46,162 TOTAL: 4 This Relates to Agenda Item No. 2 Transportation Committee June 15, 2018 From: Lucas Kurlan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:05 PM To: Lero, Tessa Transportation Committee 6/15/2018 (June 15 2018) Non-Agenda Lucas Kurlan No organization Comment: "On the I-5, within auspices of the NCC project, I would like SANDAG, en lieu of creating 2 new carpool lanes in each direction, to instead convert at least one general-purpose lane, in each direction, into a carpool lane. As I was explained at an open house by one of the employees of SANDAG, the county is implementing the NCC project in phases. The first phase, currently underway, only expands the highway by 1 lane in each direction. I know that Southeastern San Diego has also requested the board to consider lane conversion en lieu of adding lanes. This is a prime opportunity to save construction costs, reduce emissions, and encourage more environmentally friendly transportation. We can always add a lane if the conversion doesn't work, but it's not easy or practicable to take away a lane if it isn't needed. It is important for the board to step in because lane conversion of any sort was never considered in the EIR. Thank you for your time. I hope you will heed my comments. I can be contacted at [email protected]" I will not be present at the meeting to read this comment. Will it still reach the parties? Also, please confirm this was received. Thank you, Lucas Kurlan. This Relates to Agenda Item No. 2 Transportation Committee June 15, 2018 6-15-2018 Transportation Committee Meeting L.0 Roads, Rail, High-Speed Rail, Bridges, Busses, and Bicycle L.L Roads Seattle's Space Needle observation deck will get a S100E6 make over. Ref: ENR, April 2, 2018 pp. 5 . Picture of Chase Center and Golden State Warriors mixed-use project in San Francisco. Ref: ENR, April 2018 pp. CA8 L.L.2lnterstate l-5 will be closed for 3-overnight periods over the next 2-weeks to build a support column for a trolley bridge just south of Nobel Drive in the center divider of l-5. Drivers will be detoured via l-805 to Gilman Drive on 5-22,5-24, and 5-29-18 from 9:30 p.m.-5:00 a.m. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-22-18 pp. 82 L.1..2.2 Autonomous Trucking Convoys Tesla CEO Elon Musk says his company's battery-powered, Class 8-big rig will be 20% cheaper to operate than diesel trucks and is "economical suicide for rail". He says the cost of running 3 or more "platooned" electric semis would "approach the cost of shipping by rail". Ref: Railway Age, April 20L8 pp. 10 1.L.3 State, County, and City The Highway 101 North of San Francisco opened a 2.5-mi segment, widening 16-mi of the Ma rion-Sonoma Na rrows. Ref: ENR, April23,2018 pp. L4 L.2 Rail 1.2.1 lnterstate Freight Systems Total U.S. and Canadian carloads for February 2018 vrs 2Ot7 were 1,326,0gS and !,345,064 respectively. Ref: Railway Age, April 20L8 pp. 5 o NY state awarded a 5200E3 grant for a siding to Norfolk Southern in Schoharie County to allow Hoober Feeds to receive materials via rail for feeds and services. Ref: Railway Age, April 2Ot8 pp.7 . ln March the short line industry testified before 2-Congressional committees-the House Ways and Means Subcommittee to extend the 45G short line rehabilitation tax credit and a Senate Commerce Subcommittee hearing to get funding programs. L Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 15 . Update on CSX and its leadership with hedge fund's E. Hunter Harrison-who passed away Dec L6,2016, and his changes to low earnings under John Snow who went on to a cabinet position with George W Bush, that lead to the RR's driven up stock price. Declined revenues to Michael Ward who brought CSX back despite Mantle Ridge of the Children's lnvestment Fund, to Canadian Pacific and Pershing square capital Management's Bill Ackman. CSX is now run by CN veterans Jim Foote and Edmund Harris. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 1.6, 22-23, & 18, 20 & 22-23 L.2.t.t Locomotives General Electric will tie its train engine division to the railroad equipment maker Wabtec in PA, in a deal worth S1LE9, as CEO John Flanney breaks off parts of the conglomerate. Wabtec CEO Raymond Betler will lead the combined company, and the deal will close in 2019. The combined company will have more than 23E3 locomotives globally, with most production coming from Western Pennsylvania and in Fort Worth, TX. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-22-Lg pp. Ca . The Stockton Terminal and Eastern RR in CA, Omnitrax short line was awarded a grant by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District for the purchase of a new environmentally friendly locomotive for the district-the KLW SEL0B T4L unit will be built by Knoxville Locomotive Works and is EPA Tier-4 compliant, delivering 1,050-hp from a MTU2000 V12 prime'mover. Ref: Railway Age April 2OI8 pp.7 . ln 9-weeks the GE manufacturing solutions-GEMS-1.0E6-ft2, 7L-acre,SOO-emplyee facility in Fort Worth, TX can take an aging locomotive through a modernization program and upgrade ¡t to state-of-the- art technology. The facility has completed 170-locomotives for North American customers-including kits since 20L7 and another 1,000 are expected to be modernized at Fort Worth and other GE plants worldwide for global customers. The "mods", and kits will originate in Fort Worth and GE Transportation completed 2,OOO-locomotive mods in more than 24-countries, for 37-customers. The mod program improves utilization, yielding increased tractive effort of up to 50%, better adhesion of up lo 25%o, improved fuel efficiency of up lo 10To, improved reliability of up to 4OYo, and O & M expense reductions of 20%. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 p. 8 1.2.t.2 Positive Train Control-PTC-and Communications Based Train Control-CBTC-. FRA Ron Batory pledged the agency is moving to ensure railroads acquire, install, test, and fully implement certified PTC systems in tome to meet the Congressional interim deadline of December 3I,2OI8. The FRA is committed to ensure RRs and suppliers work together to implement PTC systems. Ref: Railway Age, April 20L8 pp. 6 1.2.4 Urban Light RailSystems 2 The merger of Siemens mobility business unit and Alstom Transport reached a Business Combination Agreement, setting out terms and conditions agreed to by the two. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 6 . The Dallas area Rapid Transit awarded a contract to Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam lnc. to manage the extension of platforms at 28 of its stations. Ref: Railway Age, April 2078 pp.7 . Canadian taxpayers are not accustomed to user-pay or revenue generating infrastructure, and public transit generally runs at a loss requiring large subsidies. Since the 2000's billions of dollars from federal and provincial programs helped municipal decisions to develop light rail transit-LRT-under complex, long-term contractual agreements between public agencies and the private sector. Canada has 2-LRT projects procured as a P3 in operation with another S-under construction and 5-under procurement. ln each jurisdiction they use one of 3-P3 models: Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain-DBFOM-by leveraging availability payments from the public owner to secure private debt financing, Design-Build- Finance-Maintain-DBFM-like DBFOM except the public owner retains operational responsibilities and related risks vis-à-vis the private sector partner, Design-Build-Finance-DBF-that entails an agreement for a private contractor to design, construct, and finance the capital cost of a project for a fixed price by a fixed date. CDPQ INFRA is a subsidiary of Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec transfers responsibilities and risk from the project owner to CDPQ lntra, a public institution with investment expertise on private transit and greenfield projects. PPP Canada was a Crown Corporation established by the conservative government in 2008 that invested CSI-.3E9 in 2S-infrastructure projects. The current liberal government has now phased out PPP Canada and launched a new CS35E9 Canada lnfrastructure Bank to invest in revenue-generating infrastructure projects and attract private sector and institutional investment. Ref: Railway Age, April 2OtB pp.26-28 . Article on track inspection, service providers: ENSCO lnc.; GREX; Herzog Services lnc.; Holland LP; NxGen Rail Services; Plasser American Corp.; Protran Technology; and Sperry Rail Services. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 29-30 & 32-35 . The S5.3E9 Montreal light rail system financed by a pension fund picked a developer for the 67-km line's route to open in 2021. Ref: ENR, April 30, 2OL8 pp.14 1,.2.4.1, Street Cars The first of 6-L937 Presidents Conference Committee streetcars returned to the city of El Paso in March 2018, following a restoratíon and modernization in PA. They were removed from services in t974 and kept in outdoor storage for decades before being restored and repaired by the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority. Upgrades will include, car body components, new propulsion systems, complete rewiring, new interiors and door system upgrades. lt also included modern features of HVAC systems, pantographs and mobility device lifting systems and others. 3 Ref: Railroad Age, April 20t8 pp.7 1.2.6 lnternational Freight Systems Shanxi Jingshen Railway Co. Ltd. China awarded Pandrol a contract for FASTCLIP FC-16 fastening systems- rail to tie, a major national infrastructure project, and manufacture 880E3 FC-16 fasting sets to cover 145-mi of heavy-haul track through Menghua to Central China. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 7 . Chris Aadnesen who worked in Alaska, Estonia, Mexico, and Texas brought a vision of a seamless "NAFTARailway" linking the U.S., Canada, and Mexico together. A group of executives performed work for Kansas City Southern-KCS-in Mexico in the mid-1990s when Ferrocarriles Nacionals de México-FNM-was privatizing, KCS with Transportación Maritima Mexicana-TMM-, bid on the national system's 2,26t-mi Northeast Railroad concession made up of Nuevo Laredo-Mexico City main trunk, with connections to ports at Lázaro Cárdenas, Veracruz and Tampico, and through industrial centers in Monterrey and San Luis Potosi. The Northeast RR was the most sought-after portion of the FNM concessions that carried 46% of all rail freight in Mexico and 600/o of all freight traffic coming from the U.S. ln L997 KCS and TMM bid SL.4Eg, winning the rights to operate the concession paying 49% and 5L% respectively. ln 2005 KCS lndustries purchased TMM's share giving it full ownership and renamed it Kansas City Southern de México-KCSM-. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 2 L.3 High-Speed Rail-HSR- 1.3.2 Higher Speed -HrSR- 1'3.2.I U.S. Systems-in North America-LS1to 230-mph The CA CHSRA released lts draft 2018 Business Plan under Brian Kelly as CEO. The 1'L phase will be budgeted atS77E9. Ref: ENR, April 2, 2Ot8 PP. t2 L.4 Bridges 1.4.3 State, County, and City PA's U.S. Route L3-Frankford Ave bridge-the nation's oldest active vehicular structure, will get a rehabilitation to keep it in service for several more decades. The 73-ft-long, 3-span, stone-masonry and concrete closed Spandrel arch, was built in 1697, and upgraded in 1893 to accommodate street cars. Ref: ENR, March L9/26,2018 pp.5 o More than 1O0-bridges in MS have been receiving notices by Gov. Phil Bryant after receiving notice by the Federal Highway Authority that they are unacceptable safety risks. Ref: ENR, April 23, 20L8 pp. 5 4 1.4.4 lnternationalTurkey started the Dardanelles suspension bridge project. lt will span 2,023-m and be called Canakkale 1915. The contract went to South Korean Daelim, South Korean Engineering & Construction, and localYapi Lima. Ref: ENR, April 2, 2018 pp. 10 ¡ The 118-year old North Washington Street Bridge Across the Charles River in Boston will be replaced Ref: ENR, April9/16,20L8 pp. 16 1.6 Bicycle San Diego's pedicab industry is facing a fee increase of L00% to pay for enhanced enforcement, while a councilman seeks a more aggressive crackdown. Merchants, downtown residents, and tourists, continue to complain about the pedicabs blaring-music, driving carelessly, and gouging customers, by concealing and varying rules. The police department says the fees will go up from SZLZ to S409/yr to step up enforcement. Since 2015 the total fee will be up to 5550 when background check mandates and business license is included. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-20-18 pp. 81 & BLO 1.6.3 Bike Trails The stretch of University Ave. from Hillcrest to North Park in San Diego is the most dangers road for bicyclists in San Diego. Says Workers Compensation lawyers at Rubens Kress & Mulholland in Chicago. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says 1,O0O-biclists died in 2015 and nearly 500E3 sustained injuries. Their full list is on bit.ly/2w2za3\. Ref: San Diego News, May 18-31,2018 pp.1 2.0 Port and Military lssues 2.1 Ports 2.L.L Container Ships Some 2,7L0-Liberty Ships were completed by 18-U.S. shipyards during WW ll to bring cargo, equipment, and munitions to the Allied War effort. Shipbuilding methodology of modularized construction, assembly line production, and welding were also developed. Some 2,400 of the ships survived the war and 1.00s were bought up by Greek ship-owners-including Aristotle Onassis, for a fraction of the 52.0E6 they cost to build. The Greek merchant shipping industry was decimated during the war. The Greek shipping industry is at the top of the world, even after SO-years. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp.4 o The top 5-country commercial fleets values are: Greece-599.60E9, Japan-$89.10E9, China-S83.50, USA- S47.00E9, and Norway-S42.90E9. There were L2-offshore rigs operating in the U.S. GOM about April 11, 2018. Greek's tanker fleet value is $35.7E9 and China ¡s at 518.689. Greek's fleet total DWT is 308.8E6- DWT. The top flags of registry by DWT are: Panama-343.486, Liberia-219.4E6, Marshall lslands-21-6.6E6, Hong Ko ng- 17 3.3E6, a nd Singa po re-124.2E6. 5 Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 6 . South Korea's government said it will implement a 5-year Plan to rebuild Korean Shipping, South Korea's Hyundai Merchant Marine-HMM-will order a series of eco-friendly and highly efficient mega container ships for it's fleet. HMM plans to order 2O-mega ships-12-above 20E3-TEU and 8-14E3-TEU. The ships will be deployed in the Asia-North Europe and U.S. East Coast trades respect¡vely. The ships will meet IMO's sulfur requirements with scrubber installation or LNG bunkering for all new vessels. HMM will also develop a plan to enhance global competitiveness to promote business normalization and shareholder value and create added value between shipping and logistics for mutual growth and develop lT technology in global networks. Under South Korea's plan, 200-new commercial vessels are expected to be ordered-140-bunkers and 60-container ships. To keep local shipbuilders going they will order-4O-public purpose ships-patrol boats and military vessels by 20L9. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 16 . ln April 2018 Crowley Maritime Corp. transferred frigid LNG into the 1'Lof its new Commitment Class ConRo ships, El Coqui. The fill-up was made by Crowley Partners, Eagle LNG Partners, and Clean Energy, who loaded 41-0E3-gal of LNG from 4L-trailers. They trucked the trailers from LNG plants to the VT Halter Marine Shipyard in Pascagoula, MS where its being constructed. Each trailer load took about an hour to empty into the 2,400-TEU-El Coqui, taking several days to complete. The ships cryogenic, vacuum- insulated system will keep the LNG in a frigid state at -2600F until its ready for use. When the vessel is operating, Eagle LNG partners new liquefaction facility near Jacksonville, FL will support the ships fuel needs. The 2-companyies constructed a dockside LNG fuel depot at the JAXPORT Talleyrand Marine Terminal for faster LNG fueling. Ref: Marine Log, May 20L8 pp. L6 . Maritime industry efforts to improve Environmental Performance-EP-have led to the production of next generation engines and propellers that can be too efficient for designs of some powertrains, particularly those powering common commercial vessels such as bunker, tankers, and container ships. Research is on-going at the lnternational Association of Classificatíon Societies-IACS-, the lnternational Council on Combustion Engines, and ABS that are researching the solutions. Traditionally, IACS members approved torsional-vibration characteristics of a powertrain with Rule IACS UR M68 that defines "semi- empirical" limits stemming from a recognized approach to fatigue prevention and industry records. The EP trend reduced power and torque margins and increased the use of thinner and shorter shaft lines that are more vulnerable to external disturbances, such as forces from heavy propellers or operating in heavy weather. The margins are for the powertrain to accelerate through the "Barred Speed Range"-BSR-where it causes fatigue-related failure of the vessels shaft line, or problems maneuvering in heavy seas. Some new builds may have these problems. Sea trials indicate that by "over-boosting" the torque inside the BSR, the stress levels on the shaft line are slightly reduced during acceleration within the range. lt is thought to be caused by the shorter time spent on the resonance, resulting in less t¡me for vibration to build to maximum levels, and increased propeller damping due to its heavier curve during acceleration. The power margin varies depending on the propeller curve, during the scantling trial, design trial, ballast trial, and Bollard Pull Curve. A small power margin or a small light running margin, indicates reduced acceleration capability and reduced maneuverability. When BSR transit time is unacceptably long, engine makers use software to intervene in the engine control system and increase torque by using 6 dynamic limiter functions. lt appears this approach does not increase the vibratory stresses unless excessive power is used. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 29-30 . The tragic loss of El Faro highlighted the value of risk management and conductivity. Global network connectivity could have helped the El Faro steer out of the hurricane. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 31 and February 2OL8 pp.22-25 . The Danish maritime industry is moving to accelerate the pace of their operations by digitizing vital aspects of shipping operations by using data sharing. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 33-34 . MacGregor part of Cargotec, has upgraded and optimized the container stowage systems on 7-9,300- TEU Hapag-Lloyd C-class container ships to improve cargo carrying efficiency. lt will allow for higher stack weights for FTUs. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 36 2.L.L.t Regulation The marine industry lives by Article 98 of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea-it is the duty to render assistance to others at sea so long as it can be done without serious-danger to your ship, the passengers, orthe crew. lssues were tested in the August27,20t0 accident when the Clipper Adventurer ran aground in the Canadian Arctic, where no one was hurt. Charts in the area are not regularly surveyed. Review of SOLAS, Chapter V Regulation 7 addresses governments responsibility for communications. Ref: Marine Log, May 20L8 pp.40 2.t.t.2 CNG, LNG, LPG, and Articulated Tug and barge-ATB- Keppel offshore & Marine, Singapore will deliver South East Asia's L'Ldual-fuel LNG tug to Keppel Smit Towage. The KST Liberty will make LNG bunkering available at it's ports by 2020. LNG fuel is carried in containerized type-C|SO-certified tanks on the main deck, and the vessel is equipped with a compact, cost-effective and patented LNG vaporizer. Shell will supply LNG fuel for the tug. FuelLNG, a joint venture between Keppel O & M and Shell Eastern petroleumk-Ptd-Ltd. will provide LNG bunkering services. The Keppel O & M Group is building 7-dual-fuelvessels. lt's KeppelSingmarine subsidiary won a contact to build Singapore's 1't-LNG duel fueled bunker tanker. The 7,990-dwt tanker will be built to Bureau Veritas requirements and deliver marine fuel to ocean going vessels within local port limits. An option for a 2nd-tanker will be exercised within 6-months. ln October 2017 Keppel O & M delivered the world's Lslconverted Floating Liquefaction-FLNG-vessel Hilli Episeyo to Golar LNG Ltd. lt is chartered to Perenco Cameroon and the 1't-FLNGV project in Africa. lt began producing LNG back in March 2018. Golar also plans to convert it's 1977-built Golar Gandria at Keppel for FLNG conversion. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 14 2.t.1.3 Crude Oil 7 Crowley Alaska Tankers, LLC completed the acquisition of 3-tankers from SeaRiver Maritime lnc. and is chartering them to SeaRiver under multi-year terms. Built by Philly Shipyard and delivered in201.4 and 2015 respectively, the tankers Liberty Bay and Eagle Bay each have a capacity of 760E3-bbls and transport crude from Alaska to the West Coast refineries. The 3'd-vessel SR American Progress delivered in 1997 has a capacity of 342E3-bbls and transports refined petroleum between the U.S. Gulf and East Coast ports. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 16 2.1..L.4 Reefers Canadian Pacific selected Thermo King SLXi-DRC reefer units after testing them in their rugged environment and climate of Canadian Railways- the first customer to do so in North America. The SLXi-reefer has a slim profile that increases cargo capacity, of an extra pallet row of cargo, and they use next-generation, lower global warming potential, environmentally friendly refrigerant, R4524. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp.7 2.1.2 Cruise Ships Construction has begun on a 2nd-highspeed ferry being built for Rhode lsland Fast Ferry, lnc. by Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding, Duclos Corp., Somerset, MA. The 32O-passenger, all-aluminum catamaran is 1-08.79-ft x 31.5-ft and scheduled for delivery in 2019. lt features the Australia's lncat Crowther design "S" bow hull for excellent seakeeping, directional stability and high tolerance to shifts in term and displacement. lt will be powered by twin MTU-12V4000M64 diesel engines, each 1,875-Bhp at 1,800-rpm and vessel speeds up to 29-knots. The engines turn a pair of S-blade Ni-Br-al propellers through ZF 5055 gear-boxes. lt will also feature 2-55-kW generators and a VT/MDI hydraulic trim tab motion control system. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. L5 . lnterview with Chief Concept Engineer, John Waterhouse of Elliott Bay Design Group-EBDG-and its 3O-years of solid portfolio of designs. ln the ferry industry EBDG carved a niche for:Alaska Marine Highway System, the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority, and Staten lsland Ferry. The firm now has 3D computer modeling, smart phones, and software tools to do the work. Ref: Marine Log, May 20L8 pp. 20 2.1.4 U.S. Huntington lngalls lndustries lngalls Shipbuilding facilities on the east bank of the Pascagoula River in MS when the oríginal lngalls Shipbuilding corp. was founded in L938-was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The reactivation is expected to take 2-years and includes the addition of large covered construction areas and restoration of an outfitting pier. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 15 2.1.4.L I nland Waterways The U.S. ACE opened the Bonnet Carre Spillway in Louisiana to manage early seasonal floods on the Mississippi River. ACE opens the spillway when it appears the river's flow rate could exceed 8 I.2586 Ft3/sec in New Orleans. Without release, the volume would reach L.4E6-ft3/sec and 18.2-ft height. The river was at 15.7-ft on March 8,2}I9,just below the 17-ft flood stage at the gauge in New Orleans. Levees are designed to protect the city up to 20-ft. By March 74,2OLg a total of L48 of the spillway's 350- bays were opened, diverting 140E3-ft3/sec and are expected to be open for 3-weeks. Ref: Engineering News Record-ENR-, March L9/26,2018 pp. 5 2.L.5 lnternational Stena RoRo signed a bareboat charter agreement with DFDS for a 1,000-passenger, 3,100 lane meter capacity new-build RoPAX for operation on the English Channel. lt is the Sth Stena E-Flexer RoPax class vessel being built at Chinese shipyard AVIC lnternational with an option for 3-more from 2021 and onwards. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 10 . A.P. Moller-Maersk signed a contract with Boston-based Sea Machine Robotics to implement its perception and situation awareness for smart technology in one of the company's new Winter Place lce- class container ships. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. L3 2.1.6 Maintenance Operations Randall Fox, captain of fishing vessel Native Sun, and son of the ship's owner Bingham Fox were found guilty of discharging oily waste directly into the ocean by U.S. District court in Seattle, WA. They could face maximum of 6-years in prison and criminal fine of S250E3. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 10 . Ballast water management system manufacturers and stakeholders formed the Ballastwater Equipment Manufacturers Association-BEMA-from demand for well-founded information on the practicability of ballast water treatment technologies, in addition to technical and environmental aspects of implementing ballastwater management regulations worldwide. BEMA will serve as a resource for shipowners, designers, testing equipment suppliers, and regulators for discussions of the expectations of the technology across a world fleet. Ref:The Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 16 2.1.8 Hybrid and Electric Fleets Discussions with Dr. Christoph Ballin, CEO of Torqeedo, a German Company that makes integrated electric propulsion systems for the light commercial marine segment. The company has a niche for it's self as a leading supplier of integrated electric and hybrid supplier of integrated electric and hybrid systems for passenger ferries, excursion vessels, water taxis, harbor support boats and working vessels. The technology is evolving in the marine industry and many countries are adopting more aggressive time lines to phase out the sale of lC-engines. China built more electric vehicles-680E3-cars, buses, and trucks in20t7-more than the rest of the world combined. They will require companies that produce 30E3 or more vehicles to build at least 10% of them as electric. lndia will require all new vehicles sold in the country to be emission free by 2030. France will end gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2O4O with Paris ending them 9 by 2030. Germany wants all emission-free cars by 2030. The U.S. in CA will increase registration fees for non-electric vehicles and will follow China's examples. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp.26-27 . Leading experts in the field of battery-electric marine propulsion will meet at The Maritime Battery Workshop at DNV GL's offices in Houston to assess the regulatory, economic, societal, and technological market drivers. By 2019 there should be more than 2O0-vessels in service or under construction that have batteries installed, says Dr. Ben Gully, and engineer contributing to Research & lnnovation at DNV GL. About 67% are ferries, passenger vessels, and offshore service vessels. Momentum for battery-electric vessels has picked up in the U.S. for newbuilds of ferries, OSVs, and a l'Lhybrid battery cargo vessel ordered by CT-based Harbor Harvest at Derecktor Shipyards in Mamaroneck, NY that will be fitted with BAE System's HybriDrive Marine propulsion systems. Seacor Marine has committed to retrofitting 4- Platform Supply Vessels-PSVs-owned by its Mexican joint venture Mantenimiento Express Maritimo SAPI de CV-MEXMAR-with Kongsberg Maritime hybrid propulsion technology. Another 6-PSV newbuilds for SEACOSCO, a joint venture between Seacor Marine and COSCO will integrate hybrid technology from Rolls-Royce. Washington State Ferries is developing an RFP to convert 3Jumbo Mark ll class ferries to hybrid electric propulsion and upgrade infrastructure in Seattle terminals of Bainbridge, Edmonds, and Kingston. The Research Council of Norway, lnnovation Norway and Enova supported the industries growth-almost 40% market share of the vessels in operation working with lMO. With the all-electric ferry MS Ampere, the 400-passenger hybrid tourist boat Vision of the Fjords, and recent tourist vessel-Future of the Fjords. The Norwegian NO* Fund-a industry-authority tax relief program to reduce NO* from emissions. Businesses that join the NO* Fund pay a lower NO" fee, instead paying a higher tax on emissions to the Norwegian government, and get 80% of the cost, from the government to install NO* reducing technology, beyond current regulation. The technologies are battery-electric and hybrid, hydrogen fuel cells, LNG as a marine fuel, Selective Catalytic Reduction-SCR-, EGR, and engine replacements that can get funding, and will be available until 2025. Norway has 1-,000-projects from NOK6E6 in support from the fund, and it will reduce NO* emissions by 34E3-ton/yr. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 28 2.1.9 Autonomous Navigation Wärtsilä moved to complete tests of its autodocking technology on board a 83-m Norwegian car ferry. The tests were carried out over a 4-month period during actual harbor docking on the hybrid propulsion ferry Folgefonn, owned by Norwegian Norled. The autodocking system was activated 2,000-m from the berth and automatically maneuvers and docks the vessel at the berth. Human error is the cause of marine accidents about 80% of the time. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 12 . Unmanned marine specialist ASV Global is partnering with BMT to research enhanced safety and reliability of autonomous navigation that will be partly funded by lnnovate U.K. for unmanned surface vessels-USVs- to operate in extreme and congested environments. They will use deep learning machine vision systems trained with a unique combination of simulated and real-world data. 10 Ref: Marine Log, May 20L8 pp. 36 . Switzerland's Cavotec SA will deliver and mainta¡n its automated, unmanned, mooring system MoorMaster for e-ferry terminals in Norway in a contract worth €9.0E6 [S11E6]. lt keeps vessels in pre- programed positions to maximize time available to charge battery units. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 36 2.2 Military After 3O-years of a federal Superfund sites issues-a clean-up of San Francisco's Hunter's Point radioactive and contaminated soil at the former Hunter's Point Naval shipyard, is as far away as ever. With the Navy agreeing to tests of soil samples highlighted in EPA' reviews. Ref: ENR, April 30, 2018 pp. 1L 2.2.2 lnternatio na I lssues Trump says he will open the door to a phased dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, that backs away from his demand that Kim Jong Un completely abandon his nuclear arsenal. President Moon wants the U.S. troops to stay in South Korea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-23-18 pp.A4 . More on the backlash over Vice President Mike Pence's comments on Fox news about the "Libya model", from Choe Son Hui a Vice Foreign Minister in North Korea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-24-18 pp. A6 President Trump decided to abandon a summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, but Kim welcomed him at any time. Trump said the U.S. is getting North Korea upset with references to the Libya incident. Allies from a collapse of talks would mean a return to heightened tensions between nuclear powers in East Asia. Picture of Kim Jong Un demolishing North Korea's nuclear test site. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-25-L8 pp. A1 & A6 & internet news 5-24-18 . President Trump said his Administration is back in touch with North Korea and the summit may be rescheduled, perhaps even on the original June 12,20L8 date. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-26-18 pp. A4 . President Moon and Kim Jong Un met in a summit on 5-27-L8 at the truce village in Panmunjom, on the North side of the DMZ line between North and South Korea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-27-18 pp. A5 . The U.S. and North Korea on 5-27-Lg are moving to resurrect a summit meeting between their 2-leaders by June 12,20L8. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-28-18 pp. A1 & 413 . President Trump will meet with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe before the Summit with Kim Jong Un. 11 Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-29-L8 pp. A3 . Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will travel to New York on 5-30-18 to s¡t down with Gen Kim Yong Chol-North Korea's, Kim Jong Un's closest aid that can talk about the nuclear disarmament. Other teams huddled with North Korean officials in Singapore and others planned to meet in the demilitarized zone between the 2-Korea's to push a logistics and unformed agenda of a major arms control summit for June 12,20L8. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-30-18 pp. A1 . Defense Secretary James Mattis stopped in Hl to talk with Asian military leaders and attended the installation of Navy Adm. Phil Davidson as leader of the Pacific Command-PACOM and changed Davidson's post to "lndo-Pacific Command". He will proceed to the summit in Singapore. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-30-18 pp. A5 . President Trump and Kim Jong Un hailed the start of a "terrific relationship" in the red-carpeted reception area of the Singapore Capella Hotel on Sentosa lsland built on the site of a British Colonial outpost-the first time a sitting U.S. President and North Korean leader have ever met. They held a working lunch with their advisers after their one-on-one meeting. Ref:The San Diego U-T 6-12-L8 pp. A1 & A9 ¡ Kim Yong Chol-former military intelligence chief and Kim Jong Un's closest aid, landed on May 30, 2018 on an Air China flight from Beijing. He had dinner for about an hour-and-a-half with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who travelled from Washington to see him. They planned a full day of meetings on 5-31- L8 to see if the June 12, 2Ot8 meeting between Kim Jong Un and President Trump can be restored. Pompeo has met with Kim Jong Un twice in recent weeks and they know what they hope to achieve in talks. Kim Yong Chol might travel to Washington to meet President Trump with a letter from Kim Jong Un. North Korea and the U.S. are still technically at war and have no diplomatic ties because of the 1950-53 Korean war was ended with an armistice signing, not a peace treaty. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-31-18 pp. A4 . After 2-days of talks with Mike Pompeo and Kim Yong Chol in New York, President Trump voiced optimism on the 5-31-L8 efforts to reinstate a canceled summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. Kim Jong Un also welcomed a top Russian official to Pyongyang. A letter will be delivered to President Trump in Washington by Kim Jong Un's envoys. Kim Jong Un was meeting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he invited him to visit Moscow. Lavrov called for lifting sanctions on North Korea. Russia shares a 11-mi border with North Korea. lssues of North Korea using Russian ports was brought up. ln the Clinton-era Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok meet President Clinton and delivered a letter from Kim Jong ll. U.S. and North Korean envoys have been meeting at the DMZ, in Panmunjom, and in Singapore. Ref: The San Diego U-T 6-1-L8 pp. A4 . Russia's President Putin and Japan's Prime Minister Abe met in Moscow on 5-26-18 for talks to resolve the dispute over 4-Pacific lslands and signing a peace treaty for 4-Kuril lslands on Japan's Northern Territories that were taken in the closing days of WW ll. 12 Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-27-18 pp. A4 . Defense SecretaryJames Mattis met with General Ngo Xuan Lich of Vietnam and Mattis said the U.S. is aligned with Hanoi on strategic goals. Ref: The San Diego U-T 6-01-L8 pp. A5 . President Nicolas Maduro said he would expel the 2-most senior diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela-giving them 48-hours to leave the country. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-23-18 pp.A3 . The U.S., disinvited China from participating in a multinational naval exercise scheduled for this summer-2018 over escalating tensions with Beijing that spanned from trade with north Korea to the military. The Pentagon cited China's rapid military buildup on disputed islands in the south China Sea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-24-18 pp. A3 . More on the backlash over Vice President Mike Pence's comments on Fox news about the "Libya model", from Choe Son Hui a Vice Foreign Minister in North Korea. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-24-18 pp. A6 . lran will pull out of a deal to stop the country from developing nuclear weapons unless it receives a concrete guarantee the economic incentives of the pact will be protected by other policies. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-26-18 pp. 41L . ltaly could fall into a "technocratic" [of knowledge] government as 81-year old Paolo Savano declared the euro "historic errof'. Ref:The San Diego U-T 5-28-18 pp.A3 . U.S. vessels Higgins-destroyer and Antietam cruiser passed within 12-nmi of the Paracel lslands and were confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea, that China claims are its own now! Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-28-18 pp. A3 3.0 Water lssues 3.1 Regulation 3.L.3 Funding MWD Southern CA committed S10.SE9 to California WaterFix for a 43-mi, 40-ft-dia tunnel system to deliver water to Southern CA. Ref: ENR, April 23,2018 pp. 14 4.0 Pipelines and Tunnel lssues 4.1 Pipelines 4,1.5 Oil and Gas 13 4.1.5.1 U.S 4.1.5.7.1" NaturalGas Grid Energy Storage The W. VA Department of Environmental Protection halted construction on the W. VA portion of the 54.289 Rover natural gas pipeline for the 2nd-time in 9-months. They had 1.4- state water pollution control permit violations in 3-counties and other clean up issues. Energy Transfer Partners said they will work with the FERC on the issues. Ref: ENR, March 19126,2018 pp. 5 5.0 Transportation Environmental lssues 5.1 Maritime Transportation Emissions 5.1.1Ship Engines Update on the IMO's 2020 deadline for the 0.5% sulfur cap on ships fuel. New builds are designed to comply, but owners of existing tonnage appear to be experiencing a stand-off. A large effort is being developed in Denmark, where the Maritime industry is 3% of the national GDP, and Maersk is some 2.5% of the GDP. Use of LNG is considered a green replacement for fuel oil because of low sulfur and PM content. For retrofit applications the requirement for larger fuel tanks and associated reduction in cargo space, as well as new engines, the expenditure is almost always unjustified. Another option is low-sulfur heavy fuel oil-LSHFO-where sulfur is refined out of ordinary heavy fuel using a visbreaker or coker that is popular for older tonnage. A coker is a billion-dollar cost improvement and takes S-years to install. Owners can also install scrubbers to wash the sulfur from exhaust gasses, depositing the resulting sludge in a sediment tank that is unloaded in port calls. IMO will allow use of heavy fuel oil-HFO-with scrubbers and some 2,00O-scrubbers will be installed ahead of 202O, in a small share of 12083-ships. A new requirement-in March 2020 is that shipowners need to notify a bunker supplier if they have a scrubber installed and then can be supplied with 3.5% sulfur HFO, if you don't have one, you will need to take the 0.5% sulfur fuel. ln 2020 the bunker fuel market is expected to experience a SZS¡9 increase in cost. Old bunker tanks contain high-sulfur residues that contaminate the low-sulfur fuel and cause non- compliance. To comply, the tanks will need to be cleaned, before being refueled with LSFO. Ref: Marine Log, May 2Ot8pp.23-25 . ExxonMobil announced it will supply fuels that comply with IMO's 0.5% sulfur cap in ports in Northwest Europe, the Mediterranean, and Singapore. Others will be announced as they are developed. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 25 6.0 Transportat¡on Financial lssues To out-do stock and bond returns the $349E9 CA Public Employee's Retirement System on 5-17-L8 unveiled 2-new in-house strategies that will directly buy stakes in companies-a bid to boost returns by circumventing fees paid to traditional private equity managers and they expect a 6% ROI over 10-years. Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, and KKR & Company already handles 52789 for CaIPERS. The pension has St+¡g in "dry powder" waiting private equity placement, wants to use BlockRock and Goldman Sacks to use beyond traditional funds. Private equity and venture capital assets under management swelled to I4 $2.S3E12 globally as of June 2017. Those lock up money for L0-years charging fees of 7.5% of committed capital and 20% of investment profits. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-19-18 pp. C4 o ln the 1't - round of TIGER grants under the Trump Adm.-the DOT emphasized rural projects with 60% of the S4S7.1E6 distributed, and Trump wants to zero out it's funds in FY-20L8. Congress may reject it. Ref: ENR, March 79/26,2018 pp.6 . Senate Democrats are proposing a St.O¡rZ-10-yr infrastructure plan of an entire direct federal funding plan, compared to President Trump's S1.5E12, with S200E9 in federal spending plan. Ref: ENR, March t9/26,20L8 pp.7 . The omnibus spending bill has a SZf eg infrastructure hike. Ref: ENR, April2,2018 pp.4 6.L Ports The popular Small Shipyard Grant Program by the U.S. Maritime Administration announced they have S19.6E6 available for capital and related improvements under the program. Ref: Marine Log, May 2018 pp. 10 6.5 Rail, HSR, and Light Rail Annual analysis of North American revenue-earning railcar fleets reveals fleet size increased slightly in 2OL7 , with the 2-largest sub-fleets-covered hoppers and tank cars, accounting for all growth. Hoppers declined, and average car age was unchanged with new cars being trended large, with 286E3-lb gross rail load. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. 38-40 6.1- Ports 7.0 Airport and Global Space lssues 7.1 Airports 7.1".L Planes lrvine JetSuite will add hybrid electric planes to its fleet starting in2022. They will carry 12- passengers, are being developed by Bothell, WA's electric aircraft startup, Zunum Aero, and is blocked by Boeing's venture capital arm as well as JetBlue Technology Ventures. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-23-18 pp. C1 & C2 7.1.3 lnfrastructure The Chicago city council approved the S8.5E9 O'Hare Airport upgrade in Chicago. Ref: ENR, April9/16,2018 pp. 4 15 7.1.7 lnternational A Cuban state airliner crashed and burned moments after take-off from Havana on 5-L8-18 killing nearly all 1L4-people aboard the 4O-year old plane. Cuba blames the U.S. economic embargo by the U.S. government for the decrepit fleet. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-19-18 pp. A3 . The Tocumen lnternational Airport in East Panama City is the hub of the Americas-operates 34- boarding gates with 400-flights/day to 82-destigations in 35-countries in America, Europe, and South Asia. Terminal 2 will add 20-new gates for 54-aircraft positions, adding 9.0E6 more customers to the services at the end of 2OL7 for a total airport capacity serving 24E6 passengers now. Ref: ENR, April 9 /L6, 2OL8 pp. 24 7.2 Global and Space 7.2.1 NASA NASA may place nuclear power plants on the Moon and Mars-called Kilopower, to provide enough power for early settlements in space. Developed by DOE, each reactor could be carried on a rocket and provide 10-kW of power for L0-years. An outpost on the Moon would need 40-kW-equilevent to 3 to 8-typical homes. On the Moon, night times can last more than 2-weeks. Fission reactors could also be effective on Mars, where dust storms last for months and sun light is only 40% of that of the Earth. The Soviet Union has sent 30-reactors into space and the U.S. has only sent 1, that in 1-965. NASA's mission depends on radioisotope thermoelectric generators-RTGs-that powered Voyager 1, the Cassini mission to Saturn, and the New Horizon mission to Pluto. The kilopower uses an enriched uranium core, fission reactor to produce heat to molten salt, to a sterling converter and a radiator to keep the sterling converter cool. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-27-18 pp. C1 & C5 8.0 Border and Culture lssues 8.1 Border A border patrol agent shot and killed a woman who had crossed the border illegally near Laredo, TX on 5-23-18 after the officer came under attack. Ref:The San Diego U-T 5-25-18 pp.A2 8.L.1 lmport-Export More on China's plan to buy 5200E9 in American products/yr to satisfy President Trump's "America First" policy and reduce the trade deficit between the U.S. and China. President Trump has imposed some S5Oe9 in tariffs on Chinese goods. Liu He who led negotiations for China, suggested both sides would stop recently imposed tariffs says China's Zinhua News Agency, Archbishop of Canterbury. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-20-L8 pp.A4 and 5-21-L8 pp.A4 . China will cut tariffs on July 1,,20L8, on U.S. import goods to China 1,6 Ref: The San Diego U-T 6-L-L8 pp. A6 . Mexico's 4-presidential candidates focused on the countries ties with the United States during a debate in Tijuana on 5-20-L8. They want Mexican dignity in bilateral relat¡ons and they expect President Trump to respect Mexico. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-22-18 pp. A1 & A7 . L4-nations are condemning Venezuela over the re-election of President Nicolas Maduro's and his government. ln the U.S., President Trump barred American's from a risky, but lucrative type of financial transaction with Venezuela's state-owned companies, saying the election was a sham. Spanish Prime Minister Mariana Rajoy said the vote was not respecting "minimal democratic standards" and vowed to consult with E.U. counter parts. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-22-18 pp.A3 . President Trump and ZTE Corp. will free the company from severe penalties over export law violations, saying the restrictions harmed American firm's that sell materials to China. Ref: The San Diego 5-23-18 pp.A3 . The Trump Administration on 5-23-18 launched an investigation into whether tariffs are needed on the imports of automobiles into the United States as talks over NAFTA stalled. The Commerce Secretary will be asked to consider whether imports of automobiles include trucks and auto parts threaten U.S. national security. President Trump is consideringa20-25% import tax on foreign cars. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-24-18 pp.413 . China awarded lvanka Trump 7-new trademarks, including books, housewares, and cushions, as President Trump moves to help a Chinese telecommunications company from going bust in the U.S. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-29-18 pp. A4 . President Trump said he would proceed with tariffs of S50E9 on Chinese imports and introduce new limits on Chinese investment in U.S. high-tech industries to crack down on Chinese acquisitions of U.S. technology. lt was lO-days after Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said the trade war with China was "on hold" to create bargaining leverage for Commerce Secretary Ros, who will arrive for talks in Beijing on 6-1-18 aimed at cooling trade tensions. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-30-L8 pp. A4 . Sears closed 1,L80 stores including Kmart discount ones, with 820-left because of market competition. Ref: San Diego U-T 6-1-18 pp. Ca o Debates on wisdom of steeper tariffs on U.S. imports and/or withdrawing from global trade pacts to protect the domestic industry and jobs, but historically the actions pose economic and national security risks. Ref: Railway Age, April 2018 pp. L4 T7 . Foxconn Technology Group from Taiwan selected Gilbane Building Company of Providence, Rl and Germany's M + W Group as contractor for a lslphase S10.0E9 TV assembly building, LCD screen glass factory, water and energy plant, offices, and parking in Mount Pleasant, Wl. The local government will perform on site infrastructure work. CH2M's -subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering will be contracted for architectural and engineering services, and Sigma Group for environmental consulted services for the 1.5E6-ft2 industrial valley. Ref: ENR, April2,2018 pp. 5 8.1.2 Ports of Entry A new interpretation of the Department of Homeland Security of asylum seekers rights come to the U.S., says they should stay in the "first safe country" they entered, referring to Central American Caravan members, should seek asylum in Mexico. Carlsbad voted to back the federal governments lawsuit against CA's sanctuary laws. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-22-18 pp. A1 & A8 . Allegations of abuse of unauthorized immigrant children detained by federal authorities along the southwest border are claimed by the American Civil Liberties Union and University of Chicago Law School. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-24-18 pp. A1 & A8 . The number of migrant children held in U.S. government custody without their parents, has surged2t% in the past month-driven by the Trump Administration's "zero tolerance" crackdown on families that cross the border illegally. The DHHS said they had t},773-migant children in its custody, up from 8,886 on April 29,2018. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-30-18 pp. A1 & 4L0 . tY-20I7 was a record drug-busting year for the U.S. Coast Guard as they seized 455E3-lb of cocaine with a wholesale value of S0eg. ln 2018 in April, at the Port of Everglades, in Fort Lauderdale, FL the USCG offloaded cocaine and marijuana with a street value of S1.0E9 that was seized in international waters in the Eastern Pacific off Mexico and Central and South America, by U.S. and Canadian operations. The efforts are by the USCG, Navy, Customs and Border Protection, FBl, Drug Enforcement Administration, and lmmigration and Customs Enforcement, along with allied and international partner agencies. Ref: Marine Log, May 20L8 pp. 12 8.2 Culture K-Pop by Korean boy band BTS is No.1 on the Billboard Album Chart with sales of 135E3 in its L'Lweek out. Ref:The San Diego U-T 5-29-18 pp.A2 o The state of CA will create a state-backed bank to handle the billions of dollars flowing into retailers dealing with the recreation marijuana market. The Controlled Substance Act of \97O says marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug that includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Ref: The San Diego U-T 5-31-18 pp. Cl r.8 John G Wotzka 720 4th Ave San Diego, CA 92101, Ph: 619-446-769},[email protected] 19