Members Joe Kellejian, Chair Councilmember, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal) Jim Madaffer, Vice Chair Mayor Pro Tem, City of San Diego Mickey Cafagna Mayor, Poway (Representing North County Inland) Jack Dale Councilmember, Santee TRANSPORTATION (Representing East County) Jerry Rindone COMMITTEE Councilmember, Chula Vista (Representing South County) AGENDA Ron Roberts Supervisor, County of San Diego Bob Emery Metropolitan Transit System Friday, October 21, 2005 Jerome Stocks Chair, North County 9 a.m. to 12 noon SANDAG Board Room Mary Teresa Sessom th San Diego County Regional 401 B Street, 7 Floor Authority San Diego

Alternates Vacant (Representing North County Coastal) Scott Peters AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Councilmember, City of San Diego Judy Ritter Councilmember, Vista • PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED RURAL (Representing North County Inland) TRANSIT Art Madrid Mayor, La Mesa (Representing East County) • STUDY WORK SCOPE Phil Monroe Councilmember, Coronado • 2006 STIP DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES (Representing South County)

Pam Slater-Price Chairwoman, County of San Diego • MID-CITY TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN Dianne Jacob Supervisor, County of San Diego Leon Williams Chairman, Metropolitan Transit System PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING Judy Ritter North County Transit District Ed Gallo North County Transit District YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Xema Jacobsen MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

Advisory Members Pedro Orso-Delgado MISSION STATEMENT District 11 Director, Caltrans The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Sandor Shapery Regional Planning SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, Stakeholders Working Group and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region's quality of life. Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Transportation Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.

This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Transportation Committee meeting.

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, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.

2 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, October 21, 2005

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

+1. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2005, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

+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. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item. A memorandum from staff responding to a September 16, 2005, Transportation Committee question related to the regional program is attached.

CONSENT ITEMS (3 through 8)

+3. 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) APPROVE QUARTERLY AMENDMENT (Sookyung Kim)

At its meeting on July 23, 2004, the SANDAG Board adopted the 2004 RTIP, the five-year program of major transportation projects in the San Diego region covering the period from FY 2005 to FY 2009. The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration approved the 2004 RTIP on October 4, 2004. SANDAG processes amendments to the RTIP on a quarterly basis based on requests from member agencies. The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt Resolution No. 2006-05, approving Amendment No. 12 to the 2004 RTIP.

+4. AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR EL CAJON BOULEVARD/ APPROVE I-15 (BRT) EARLY ACTION PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS (Frank Owsiany)

The Transportation Committee is asked to authorize the Executive Director to sign an agreement with the City of San Diego for the design and installation of conduit and substructures for future electrical, communication, water, and other utilities for the proposed (BRT) station on Interstate 15 at El Cajon Boulevard.

+5. ADDENDA TO THE MASTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) RECOMMEND BETWEEN SANDAG, NCTD, AND MTS (Renée Wasmund)

Two addenda are proposed to the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SANDAG, North County Transit District (NCTD), and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). Addenda 3 and 4 between SANDAG and NCTD, and SANDAG and MTS, respectively, formalize the methodology to be used for allocating funding to SANDAG for the administrative functions which transferred in consolidation. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve Addendum 3 and Addendum 4 to the Master MOU between SANDAG, NCTD, and MTS.

3 +6. AMENDMENTS TO TransNet POLICIES (Craig Scott) RECOMMEND

Amendments are proposed to TransNet-related policies previously adopted by the Board in its role as the Regional Transportation Commission in order to incorporate references to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Additional changes are recommended for clarification purposes and Policy No. 17, concerning fiscal and compliance audits, is being recommended as a new policy. If recommended for approval by the Transportation Committee, the proposed amendments and new policy will be taken to the Board in November for final approval.

+7. FREEWAY TRANSIT LANE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (Jennifer Williamson) INFORMATION

SANDAG, in partnership with MTS, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) will embark on a demonstration project to evaluate the effectiveness of using the freeway shoulder lanes as a transit priority measure. The one-year demonstration project will be implemented on State Route 52 and Interstate 805 between Kearny Mesa and University City using MTS Route 960. A before and after comparative evaluation will include assessment of operational safety for and auto drivers, transit times and schedule reliability, transit ridership changes, and passenger, and auto driver perceptions. This report describes the demonstration project which is scheduled to begin by November 2005.

+8. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARINGS FOR TRANSIT DEPENDENT AND INFORMATION DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS (James Floyd)

The Subcommittee for Accessible Transit, appointed by the Board as the region's Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, will hold public hearings to receive comments on unmet transit needs in San Diego County, as required under Section 99238.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. Comments received will assist SANDAG and the region’s transit operators in identifying the unmet transit needs of transit dependent and transit- disadvantaged persons, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and persons who are economically disadvantaged. The information received will also be used as input to the Regional Short Range Transit Plan that is now be prepared. A series of five meetings are being planned at locations in North County, San Diego (central and south) and East County. Comments will also be accepted via e-mail, mail and through SANDAG's Web site. Results of the hearings will be reported to the SANDAG Transportation Committee in December 2005.

CHAIR’S REPORT

+9. Two pieces of written correspondence are included: (1) a memo on Transportation INFORMATION Committee Member attendance; and (2) a letter regarding bus rapid transit service along the I-15 Corridor sent in response to public inquiries received by members of the Transportation Committee.

4 REPORTS (10 through 13)

+10. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CHANGE TO MTS RURAL TRANSIT ROUTE APPROVE FARES AND APPROVAL OF CORRESPONDING CHANGE TO MTS ORDINANCE (Dan Levy)

Under consolidation, SANDAG is responsible for regional transit fare policy and fare setting. As part of the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis, MTS is proposing to increase Rural Bus fares by up to $10 per one way trip. At its October 13, 2005, Board meeting, MTS will receive public input and make a final recommendation to the Transportation Committee on the proposed fare adjustment. The SANDAG Transportation Committee is asked: (1) to conduct a Public Hearing on the proposed fare adjustments to MTS Rural Bus services; and (2) depending on public input, to approve fare adjustments of up to $10 for one-way fares for MTS Rural Bus services.

+11. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT APPROVE GUIDELINES (José A. Nuncio)

The California Transportation Commission recently adopted the 2006 Fund Estimate. Other than a modest $6.3 million increase in Transportation Enhancement funds, the San Diego region will not receive new programming capacity from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for major highway and transit projects. This report discusses distribution of available funding, potential reprogramming options, and requests approval for the 2006 STIP development guidelines.

+12. MAGLEV STUDY SCOPE OF WORK (Leslie Blanda) APPROVE

The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the recommendation to proceed with a Phase 1 Study (East/West) of MagLev service between the San Diego region and a proposed desert airport site in Imperial County. A study of Phase 2 (North/South) MagLev service could follow the Phase 1 Study and would be contingent upon modifying federal legislation authorizing funding to study MagLev and securing the required local match.

+13. MID-CITY TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN AND SHOWCASE BUS RAPID TRANSIT APPROVE PROJECT STATUS (Miriam Kirshner)

In collaboration with the community, SANDAG has developed a transit network plan for the Mid-City area. The plan outlines a system of services and facilities to guide future transit investments, and includes a redefinition of the Showcase BRT project to a "Rapid Bus" along El Cajon Boulevard to better match the level of transit priority treatment requested by the community along this arterial corridor. This report describes the service and facility recommendations from the draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan, requests the Transportation Committee to release the draft plan for public comment, recommends that the Transportation Committee redefine the Showcase BRT project to a Rapid Bus project, and recommends that the Transportation Committee approve an amendment to the FY 2006 Overall Work Program (OWP) for the Showcase Project to reflect the Rapid Bus project activities. Staff would return to the Transportation Committee with details on the specific transit priority treatments, service levels, and customer amenities for an El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus.

5 14. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next two Transportation Committee meetings are scheduled for Friday, November 4, 2005, and Friday, December 9, 2005.

15. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

6 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1

Action Requested: APPROVE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2005

The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Joe Kellejian (North County Coastal) at 9:09 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance. Councilmember Phil Monroe (South County) led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Kellejian mentioned that he would like to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 a.m. so that Committee members will have time to view and ride the demonstration bus rapid transit (BRT) vehicle that will be waiting on a nearby street.

1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) and a second by Deputy Mayor Bob Emery (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), the Transportation Committee approved the minutes from the September 2, 2005, meeting.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Chair Kellejian referred to a memo in the agenda package for Item No. 2 and asked Toni Bates, Division Director of Transit Planning, to provide a report.

Ms. Bates stated that the memo is a response to a question asked by the Transportation Committee at its March 4, 2005, meeting, on the possibility of combining the environmental analysis for a potential magnetic levitation (MagLev) passenger system along Interstate 5 (I-5) with the environmental document currently underway for the North Coast I-5 Study. At its July 15 meeting, the Committee approved seeking federal funds for the study of high- speed MagLev service along the I-5, I-15, and I-8 corridors. As a result, the Committee asked about the implications of including a high-speed MagLev alternative in the preliminary engineering and environmental work currently underway for the North Coast I-5 Project. Ms. Bates stated that the memo responds to that question and concludes that past feasibility studies have identified a number of potential environmental issues in the I-5 corridor. The Caltrans North Coast I-5 Project Study is focused on freeway-related improvements, including managed lanes and general purpose lane projects, and the scope of the study does not include alternatives or analysis related to conventional or high-speed rail. Due to the identified impacts of MagLev or high-speed rail in the corridor, including these rail alternatives in the North Coast I-5 Project Study would negatively affect the schedule of the North Coast I-5 Study and is not advised. Chuck Lungerhausen, a member of the public, said that he was not present at the September 2, 2005, joint Transportation/Regional Planning Committee meeting due to a conflict with a meeting of the Subcommittee for Accessible Transportation (SCAT). At the SCAT meeting, he heard of an accessibility problem on the Green Line from Noel Neudeck. Apparently, Mr. Neudeck cannot access the ticket from the machine himself. Mr. Lungerhausen noted that he also is a member of the Transportation Accessibility Advisory Committee (TAAC), and this same topic was raised at a meeting of that body as well. He expects it will come up at the MTS Accessibility Services Advisory Committee (ASAC) meeting scheduled for September 22. Mr. Lungerhausen thought that he would be fairly well informed on this subject by that time. He expressed disappointment that this problem is being experienced on such a new system and hoped it can be resolved.

Councilmember Monroe asked Paul Jablonski, MTS Chief Executive Officer, about the status of this problem. Mr. Jablonski said that the issue has been forwarded to Cubic Corporation, the manufacturer of the fare machines. Cubic believes that the machines are compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Unfortunately, we cannot design everything we do to be accessible for every type of disability. There are a number of disabilities that prevent people from doing a whole host of activities. This is the only complaint that has been received. We will work with SANDAG to provide a more formal response to Mr. Neudeck. Gary Gallegos, SANDAG Executive Director, added that we have been responding to Mr. Neudeck with a steady stream of letters.

CONSENT ITEMS

Councilmember Judy Ritter (North County Inland) asked that Consent Item No. 4 be pulled for a comment.

3. BUDGET TRANSFER TO IMPLEMENT TRANSIT VEHICLE TRACKING BETWEEN BALTIMORE JUNCTION AND SANTEE TOWNE CENTER (APPROVE)

The Transportation Committee was asked to approve a budget transfer in an amount not to exceed $150,000 from the SD100 Modification Project (Capital Improvement Program [CIP] project number 1140400) to Location Project (CIP project number 1140300) to allow construction of a light rail transit (LRT) on a portion of the Green Line under the Spring Street Curves Project.

Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego) and a second by Deputy Mayor Emery, the Transportation Committee approved Consent Item No. 3.

4. BI-ANNUAL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REPORT (INFORMATION)

The report summarizes the results of SANDAG’s efforts to coordinate transit and land use through the project development review process for the period between January and June 2005. SANDAG staff works closely with local jurisdictions to ensure the integration of transit facilities into development projects and to improve the pedestrian environment wherever possible. During the period, these efforts resulted in the inclusion of $1.38 million worth of privately funded transit and pedestrian facilities.

2

Councilmember Ritter asked for a written list of projects and their geographic locations.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Ritter and a second by Supervisor Roberts, the Transportation Committee approved Consent Item 4, with direction to staff to provide a written list of projects and geographic locations to Transportation Committee members.

CHAIR’S REPORT

5. NABI BUS RAPID TRANSIT VEHICLE ON DISPLAY (INFORMATION)

Chair Kellejian stated that I-15 will be the first corridor in our region where we will marry transit and highway improvements using BRT. BRT will provide a high-quality transit service along our managed lanes with upgraded customer amenities on vehicles and at stations. SANDAG and the transit agencies will be identifying the qualities and characteristics desired for our BRT vehicles. We also have been keeping track of other agencies using these vehicles. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (LAMTA) recently purchased 200 vehicles for its new San Fernando Valley BRT service from North American Bus Industries (NABI). The LAMTA service is scheduled to begin operation this fall. Today we have one of those buses on display outside the building for Committee members to see and ride following this meeting. The bus is articulated with 57 seats, which is a 45 percent increase over a standard bus. It has low floors and wide doors to make and alighting easier for passengers. The bus is powered by a 320 horse-powered compressed natural gas (CNG) engine. LAMTA paid $633,000 for each of the 200 buses. About 30 vehicles were delivered in June, and the remainder will be received by June 2006.

Supervisor Roberts asked about the difference between this bus and another articulated bus. Ms. Bates said that this bus has low floors and wider doors. It is an attempt by the manufacturing industry to design more sleek-looking buses. What we are finding is that the bus manufacturing industry is having a hard time responding to the desires of transit agencies across the nation and around the world for BRT vehicle design and amenities. This bus will be employed in large volumes on a high-speed busway. She added that the manufacturer will be available at the demonstration and will be able to provide details about the vehicle to Committee members.

REPORTS

6. NCTD AND MTS SECURITY PROCEDURES (INFORMATION)

Mr. Jablonski introduced Bill Burke, San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), Director of Security, and Peter Tereschuck, General Manager of SDTI.

Mr. Burke stated that the vast majority of security efforts are associated with the trolley, but they are expanding it to buses as well. He reviewed the security/code compliance functions, security staff categories and patrol practices, security awareness measures, special enforcement unit, inspection statistics, crime statistics reporting, closed-circuit television

3 (CCTV), central monitoring, criminal investigations assisted by CCTV, the Terrorism Alert Response Program (TARP), Emergency Response Orientation, emergency drills, and robotic testing at the San Diego State University (SDSU) Station.

Mr. Burke mentioned that a question has arisen about why SDTI doesn’t have an arrangement with a police force or the Sheriff's Department, and the reason is primarily due to cost. He said that they spend about $6 million on the entire security function, and it would cost anywhere from $15-$18 million to contract with a police department or the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Burke stated that SDTI Code Compliance officers do not carry guns; however, contracted security personnel do, and it is a liability carried by the contracting agency.

Mr. Burke stated that they are in continual communications with the various local law enforcement agencies. SDTI has a huge database of people related to various system violations, and this information is shared with law enforcement agencies when requested. There are inspections both onboard vehicles and in the fare paid zones. These efforts work together to ensure that our fare compliance rate remains high. All and passengers are inspected bi-directionally each month. Security officers have a choice of giving a warning or writing a citation. Providing a warning gives passengers an opportunity to deboard and purchase a fare or upgrade the fare. This action relieves court overcrowding, is a good public relations move, and provides additional income. Security personnel provide information to patrons as well.

Mr. Burke said that they are hoping to get more CCTVs installed in La Mesa and Chula Vista. The costs are shared by the community and MTS.

Chair Kellejian commented that the security force at Old Town has been very helpful. In addition to security, they also provide information to patrons about the transit system.

Chair Kellejian asked what the policy is for a rider without a ticket. Mr. Burke said that security officers have the discretion of taking people off the train and giving them the opportunity to purchase a ticket, or to cite them with a ticket. If the inspector feels that the person is a tourist and is not familiar with the system, he/she may allow them to continue to ride.

Chair Kellejian asked if there is a public address (PA) system at the stations. Mr. Burke responded affirmatively.

Mayor Mary Sessom (San Diego Regional County Airport Authority) asked if SDTI security is tied into the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS). Mr. Burke replied that it is not. Mr. Gallegos noted that we have been talking to ARJIS about including both of the transit operators into the ARJIS system.

Mr. Jablonski compared the rate of our barrier-free fare system of 3.21 percent to that of a barrier system like the Washington Metro at over 5 percent. This shows that having a barrier does not preclude fare evasion.

4 Mayor Madrid stated his opinion that security efforts seem to be reactive rather than proactive. He was glad to hear about these proactive efforts. He relayed several incidents that have occurred within the City of La Mesa. He was pleased to hear that La Mesa would be getting CCTV cameras; however, he didn’t think the jurisdictions should have to participate in funding the cameras.

Mr. Burke played a short video of a crime that took place at the Old Town Transit Center and the role the CCTVs made in the capture of the criminals.

Karen King introduced Dave Papworth, NCTD’s Manager of Security. She said their security focus is on prevention and response, especially in light of recent bombings at transit facilities in Europe. She stated that Homeland Security dollars have been slow in coming to transit operators. We need to keep a focus on enforcing the regulations and move people in a way wherein they feel safe and secure.

Mr. Papworth reviewed the details of their security efforts in four areas: deployment, projects, activity, and training. He said that they have a security contract with Heritage Security. He noted that they also enjoy favorable relationships with the local law enforcement agencies in their area.

Mr. Papworth reviewed several projects implemented with a 2004 Urban Area Security Initiatives grant from the Department of Homeland Security, including infrastructure improvements such as increased capacity in the fiber optic backbone, surveillance system improvements at all COASTER stations, new cameras at the Old Town and Santa Fe Depot stations, and fencing improvements at Stuart Mesa. He noted that they are in the process of applying for a 2005 grant. He also reviewed activities they are involved in with various law enforcement groups and the various types of training that is provided. Mr. Papworth explained the current security programs underway.

Deputy Mayor Emery asked if the NCTD camera installation at the Old Town and Santa Fe Depot Stations was done in conjunction with MTS. Mr. Papworth replied that they were installed and controlled by NCTD. Deputy Mayor Emery suggested that this could have been an opportunity for a joint effort.

Action: This item was presented for information only.

7. REGIONAL VANPOOL PROGRAM REPORT (APPROVE)

Ray Traynor, Senior Planner, provided an outline on this item with background information, issues, and recommended strategies in two areas: proposed operating principles and funding priorities. He said that are one of the key elements of the region’s transportation demand management (TDM) strategy. This system has three goals: reduce congestion, improve air quality, and encourage solo drivers to become van riders. He said that vanpools have about a 70 percent cost recovery rate. He described how the program works, and noted that it serves a niche market of long-distance commuters. He added that the average one-way commute trip of a vanpool is 58 miles. The SANDAG Board approved an FY 2006 budget amount of $2.4 million. This is an increase over the prior year, it clears the waiting list of requested vanpools that was created in FY 2005, and provides capacity to

5 add about six new vans per month. The current policy for new vanpool startups is on a first come, first serve basis.

Mr. Traynor reviewed several issues related to the vanpool program: the employer-owned vanpool programs at both the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Southern California Edison have recently been contracted to third parties; employees are seeking additional subsidies which could tap into the FY 2006 budget; and SANDAG may have to defer or deny participation in order to stay within the current budget. Because there are no formal operating principles in place, staff has no means of prioritizing which vanpools should be allowed into the program. Mr. Traynor recommended that the Transportation Committee adopt operating principles and funding priorities to guide implementation of the vanpool program in support of adopted strategies in the I-15 Interregional Partnership and the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He reviewed the proposed formal operating principles and three funding options for this program. He showed the geographic origin-destinations of the various existing vanpools and noted that nearly 50 percent of vanpools originated from locations outside of San Diego County, with the majority from southwestern Riverside County.

Mr. Traynor reviewed the various funding priorities as follows. Option 1 would fund: (1) existing vanpools, (2) vanpools that have both an origin and destination within San Diego County, (3) vanpools commuting into San Diego County, and (4) vanpools commuting out of San Diego County. Option 2 would fund: (1) existing vanpools, (2) vanpools that have both an origin and destination within San Diego County, (3) vanpools out of San Diego County, and (4) vanpools into San Diego County. Option 3 would fund: (1) existing vanpools, and (2) vanpools on a first come, first serve basis. He reviewed the recommendations to approve the operating principles and Funding Priority Option 1. He reviewed the next steps to implement the approved Operating Principles and Funding Priority and to prepare a report to address the long-term financing of the program as part of the FY 2007 budget.

Councilmember Jerome Stocks (NCTD) asked if additional new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 money has been generated by this program. Mr. Gallegos agreed that was the case but said that we also use those dollars for transit operations.

Councilmember Monroe stated that a copy of an e-mail to First Vice Chair Sessom contained an erroneous premise. Mr. Gallegos said that all three funding options would deal with all three types of requests.

Supervisor Roberts asked if there was a minimum number of passengers required for a vanpool. Mr. Traynor responded that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines it as five, and our program requires a minimum of six passengers.

Supervisor Roberts commented that the $1.65 subsidy compares favorably to public transit. He expressed concern about the vanpool that only comes into San Diego County for a short distance, and suggested that another category be developed as the second priority that a vanpool’s destination has to be a minimum of 20 miles into the county.

6 Councilmember Stocks suggested an alternative that a vanpool has to terminate in a congested area within San Diego County. He thought those vanpools going out of San Diego County should be broken out as well. A fourth category would include trips that are less than 20 miles into or out of San Diego County.

Mayor Madrid asked about the sentence in the report related to reducing the number of subsidies offered in order to use the dwindling vanpool budget. Mr. Gallegos stated that we are receiving more money in FTA Section 5307 funds, which are used by the two transit agencies for operations. SANDAG and the region fronts the money for vanpools; in the past we have used a combination of FTA Section 5307, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and vehicle license fee program funds. We compete nationally for the Section 5307 dollars. Our analysis shows that as a result of the additional miles gained from the vanpool program, we get about a 3 to 1 benefit and more overall Section 5307 dollars for the region. Ms. King indicated that NCTD supports vanpools and TDM measures because public transit buses and trains cannot serve every need, and both NCTD and MTS have deliberately reduced their bus miles in recent years to be more efficient and to increase productivity on those miles we travel. Mr. Gallegos added that we report to the federal government the number of people in these vanpools, how many miles are traveled, and how many vehicles are in service.

Public Comment:

Mike DeMarco, a member of the public, said that he lives in Oceanside and commutes daily through San Diego County on SR 78 and I-5 to Los Angeles. He applied for a vanpool subsidy in July and was denied because he went 400 yards into another county. He is a little confused about the policy. He acknowledged some inaccuracies in the e-mail he sent. He suggested that the subsidy be based on a mileage tier.

Mr. Traynor said that vehicle miles traveled is one of the considerations contained in the proposed operating principles.

Councilmember Stocks pointed out that it is not about miles per se, but miles on congested freeways. We want the maximum bang for the buck. It is not appropriate for our regional dollars to fix Los Angeles’ problem. He suggested that Option 1 be modified to add a caveat of miles traveled within San Diego County. He thought that the vast majority of commuters would agree with that. He also expressed disinterest in funding San Onofre’s 50 vanpools.

Supervisor Roberts agreed that reverse commuters going out of the county have a lower priority than those coming into the county. We should create a fourth level of priority for commuters into or out of the county of less than 20 miles.

7 Motion Made

Supervisor Roberts moved to approve the staff recommendation with the revision to funding priority Option 1 modified to add a fourth level of priority for vanpools with less than 20 miles coming into or going out of San Diego County. Councilmember Madaffer seconded the motion.

Councilmember Madaffer sympathized with the speaker but thought the motion by Supervisor Roberts will address that. He added that if the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) wants to help fund inter-county vanpools, that would be great and we should explore this in the future. Mr. Gallegos said that we have started that dialogue and encourage our friends at the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to join in funding this program as well.

Action: Upon a motion by Supervisor Roberts and a second by Councilmember Madaffer, the Transportation Committee adopted the proposed operating principles and funding priority Option 1, as modified, to guide the management of the Regional Vanpool Program within the approved FY 2006 budget.

8. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next two Transportation Committee meetings are scheduled for Friday, October 7, 2005, and Friday, October 21, 2005.

Chair Kellejian stated that many of the Committee members have a conflict with the October 7 meeting date. He will discuss this issue with staff and will get back to Committee members on the status of this meeting.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Kellejian adjourned the meeting at 10:51 a.m.

Attachment: Attendance Sheet

8 CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2005

MEMBER/ GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS ALTERNATE AREA/ ORGANIZATION

North County Coastal City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Chair) Member Yes

City of Alternate ?

North County Inland City of Poway Mickey Cafagna Member No

City of Vista Judy Ritter Alternate Yes

East County City of Santee Jack Dale Member No

City of La Mesa Art Madrid Alternate Yes

South County City of Chula Vista Jerry Rindone Member No

City of Coronado Phil Monroe Alternate Yes

City of San Diego ---- Jim Madaffer Member Yes ---- Scott Peters Alternate No

County of San Diego ---- Ron Roberts Member Yes

---- Pam Slater-Price Alternate Yes

---- Dianne Jacob Alternate No

Metropolitan Transit City of Poway Bob Emery Member Yes Development Board MTS Leon Williams Alternate No

North County Transit City of Encinitas Jerome Stocks Member Yes District City of Vista Judy Ritter Alternate Yes Representing North County Inland

City of Escondido Ed Gallo Alternate No

San Diego County City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom Member Yes Regional Airport Governor’s Xema Jacobson Alternate No Authority Appointee

ADVISORY/LIAISON ---- Pedro Orso-Delgado Member No Caltrans ___ Bill Figge Alternate Yes

Regional Planning ___ Sandor Shapery Member Yes Stakeholders Working Group

9 This Item Relates to Agenda Item #2 Transportation Committee October 21, 2005

October 21, 2005 File Number 6000100

TO: SANDAG Transportation Committee

FROM: Ray Traynor, Senior Transportation Planner

SUBJECT: Regional Vanpool Program

This memorandum responds to a question raised by Councilmember Madaffer regarding the number of vanpools that originate from San Bernardino County and the cities these vanpools start from.

As of June 30, 2005, SANDAG had three vanpools enrolled in the Regional Vanpool Program that originates from San Bernardino County. Two of the vans originate in Fontana, and one originates in Chino.

RT/cd

San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA REPORT NO.: 3

Action Requested: APPROVE

2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) QUARTERLY AMENDMENT File Number 4000600

Introduction

The SANDAG Board, at its meeting on July 23, 2004, adopted the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the five-year program of major transportation projects in the San Diego region covering the period from FY 2005 to FY 2009. During the course of the two-year RTIP cycle, SANDAG processes amendments on a quarterly basis. This Amendment No. 12 includes requests for changes submitted by local agencies for various projects.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to approve Resolution No. 2006-05, approving 2004 RTIP Amendment No. 12 (Attachment 1).

Discussion

The projects included in this quarterly amendment were distributed for a 30-day public comment period which ended on September 30, 2005. No comments were received for any of the projects in this amendment. Projects are briefly described below (Table 1 provides additional details).

Caltrans

SR 52 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Managed Lanes (CAL26A):

At the July 22, 2005, meeting the SANDAG Board authorized the Executive Director to accept $1,000,000 from Barratt American, Inc. to contribute toward the design of this project. This amendment adds the contribution. Total project increases to $68,400,000.

HES/SR2S (CAL43):

Increases funding in FY 2006 for this safety improvement project. Total project increases to $3,643,000.

SHOPP Projects (CAL45/CAL46A/CAL46E/CAL46G):

Caltrans administers various safety related projects funded with State Highway Operations & Protection Preservation Program (SHOPP). This amendment reflects minor changes to these projects as follows: SHOPP Minor Program (CAL45) increases funding in FY 2006, total project increases to $12,070,000; SHOPP Mobility (CAL46A) moves funding from FY 2006 to FY 2008 and increases funding, total project increases to $28,184,000; SHOPP Roadway Preservation (CAL46E) increases funding in both FY 2005 and FY 2006, total project increases to $35,509,000; SHOPP Storm Water Mitigation (CAL46G) moves funding from FY 2006 to FY 2007, total project remains $7,445,000.

City of Encinitas

Santa Fe Drive (ENC11):

Increases TransNet-L funding, total project increases to $1,820,000.

County of San Diego

Lake Morena Pacific Crest Trail Staging (CNTY30):

This new project would expand the staging area and facilities for users of the Pacific Crest Trail. Total project is $205,000.

City of San Diego

Alvarado Canyon Road Realignment (SD01):

Adds TransNet-L funds in FY 2006. Total project increases to $4,910,000.

Mission Bulkhead Preservation (SD106):

Adds TransNet-L funds in FY 2006. Total project increases to $420,000.

Sorrento Creek Mitigation (SD16):

Increases TransNet-L funds in FY 2006. Total project increases to $66,000.

Traffic Signals (SD16A):

Revises the individual project lists included in the lump sum. Total project remains $5,160,000. The projects in the lump sum include: high accident locations, minor signal improvements at Governor Drive/Stadium Street and Genesee Avenue/Richland Street, replace obsolete controllers, cooperative projects, construct top 10 to 15 prioritized traffic signals, modernize top 5 to 10 prioritized traffic signals, and install/improve traffic signals at Logan Heights, Carroll Canyon Road, and Nancy Ridge Drive.

North Torrey Pines Road Bridge (SD51):

Add TransNet-L funds in FY 2006. Total project increase to $2,848,000.

2 Air Quality Analysis

On July 23, 2004, SANDAG found the 2004 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/ State Implementation Plan for the San Diego region. All of the required regionally significant capacity increasing projects were included in the quantitative emissions analysis conducted for the 2004 RTIP, as amended.

Projects in Amendment No. 12 have been demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119 without a new regional emissions analysis in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(e)(2)(ii). The capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 12 were included in the regional emission analysis of the 2030 RTP with design, concept, and scope adequately detailed to determine their contribution to the RTP’s regional emissions at the time of conformity determination. The design, concept, scope, and implementation schedule of the projects are not significantly different from that described in the 2030 RTP. Other projects identified in Amendment No. 12 are either non-capacity increasing or exempt from the requirement to determine conformity according to §93.126 of the Transportation Conformity Rule. SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to determine that these projects were exempt. The funding changes for the projects in Amendment No. 12 will not delay the implementation of the RTIP. The 2004 RTIP, including Amendment No. 12, remains in conformance with the air quality program.

RENEE WASMUND Director of Finance

Attachment: 1. Resolution No. 2006-05

Key Staff Contact: Sookyung Kim, (619) 699-6909, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

RESOLUTION

401 B Street, Suite 800 2006-05 San Diego, CA 92101 NO. Phone (619) 699-1900 • Fax (619) 699-1905 www.sandag.org

APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

WHEREAS, on July 23, 2004, SANDAG adopted the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and found the 2004 RTIP in conformance with the 1998 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and the 2002 Ozone Maintenance Plan; and

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2003, SANDAG made a finding of conformity of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 1998 RAQS; and

WHEREAS, various agencies have requested project revisions for inclusion into the 2004 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the 2030 RTP; and

WHEREAS, the regionally significant capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the 2030 RTP and the 2004 RTIP Amendment No. 12; and

WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 12 have been demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119 without a new regional emissions analysis in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(e)(2)(ii); and

WHEREAS, the capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 12 were included in the regional emission analysis of the 2030 RTP with design, concept, and scope adequately detailed to determine their contribution to the RTP’s regional emissions at the time of conformity determination; and the design concept, scope, and implementation schedule of these projects are not significantly different from that described in the 2030 RTP; and

WHEREAS, all other projects included in Amendment No. 12 are either noncapacity increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and

WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board of Directors delegated the authority for RTIP amendments, including findings of air quality conformity, to the Transportation Committee; NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Transportation Committee does hereby approve the attached Table 1 as Amendment No. 12 to the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program; and

4 RESOLUTION #2006-05, page 2

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SANDAG finds the 2004 RTIP, including Amendment No. 12 in conformance with the SIP and 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 21st day of October, 2005.

______ATTEST: ______CHAIRPERSON 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 San Diego County Transit Development Board, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Baja California/Mexico.

5 Table 1 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

Caltrans MPO ID: CAL26A Capacity Status: CI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: SR 52 HOV/Managed Lanes DESCRIPTION: From I-805 to SR 125 - construct HOV/ML, and from I-15 to Mast Blvd. - construct auxiliary lane CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Add New Funding Source

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $1,000 $750 $250 $1,000 TransNet - Major Corridors $67,400 $10,000 $45,400 $12,000 $34,000 $33,400 TOTAL $68,400 $10,750 $45,650 $12,000 $35,000 $33,400

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - Major Corridors $67,400 $10,000 $45,400 $12,000 $34,000 $33,400 TOTAL $67,400 $10,000 $45,400 $12,000 $34,000 $33,400

MPO ID: CAL43 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: HES/SR2S Exempt Category: Safety - Safety Improvement Program. DESCRIPTION: Hazard Elimination Safety and Safe Routes to School projects CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON HES $3,643 $2,020 $633 $990 $3,643 TOTAL $3,643 $2,020 $633 $990 $3,643

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON HES $3,150 $2,020 $633 $497 $3,150 TOTAL $3,150 $2,020 $633 $497 $3,150

MPO ID: CAL45 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: SHOPP Minor AQ Exempt Grouped Projects Exempt Category: Safety - Safety Improvement Program. DESCRIPTION: Various locations - minor safety projects CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON CT Minor Pgm. $12,070 $12,070 $12,070 TOTAL $12,070 $12,070 $12,070

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON CT Minor Pgm. $10,042 $10,042 $10,042 TOTAL $10,042 $10,042 $10,042

Page 1 Friday, September 30, 2005 6 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

Caltrans MPO ID: CAL46A Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: SHOPP Mobility DESCRIPTION: Lump sum for SHOPP mobility projects - consistent with 40 CFR part 93.126, 127, 128, exempt tables 2&3 CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Revise Between Fiscal Years

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $28,184 $3,709 $10,199 $14,276 $28,184 TOTAL $28,184 $3,709 $10,199 $14,276 $28,184

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $24,787 $3,709 $10,199 $10,879 $24,787 TOTAL $24,787 $3,709 $10,199 $10,879 $24,787

MPO ID: CAL46E Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: SHOPP Roadway Preservation Exempt Category: Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. DESCRIPTION: Lump sum for roadway preservation projects - consistent with 40 CFR part 93.126, 127, 128, exempt tables 2&3 CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $35,509 $21,387 $14,122 $35,509 TOTAL $35,509 $21,387 $14,122 $35,509

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $25,798 $13,503 $12,295 $25,798 TOTAL $25,798 $13,503 $12,295 $25,798

MPO ID: CAL46G Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: SHOPP- Storm Water Mitigation Exempt Category: Other - Damage repair caused by unusual disasters. DESCRIPTION: Lump sum for storm drain projects - consistent with CFR Par 93.126, 127, 128, exempt table 2 & 3 CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Revise Between Fiscal Years

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $7,445 $850 $6,595 $7,445 TOTAL $7,445 $850 $6,595 $7,445

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON SHOPP $7,445 $850 $6,595 $7,445 TOTAL $7,445 $850 $6,595 $7,445

Page 2 Friday, September 30, 2005 7 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

Encinitas, City of MPO ID: ENC11 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Santa Fe Drive Exempt Category: Safety - Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. DESCRIPTION: I-5 to Vulcan Ave. - complete pedestrian and bicycle improvements on the north & south sides of Santa Fe Drive CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Revise Between Fiscal Years

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $710 $710 $710 TransNet - L $1,110 $205 $595 $310 $1,110 TOTAL $1,820 $915 $595 $310 $1,820

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $710 $710 $710 TransNet - L $1,005 $205 $800 $1,005 TOTAL $1,715 $915 $800 $1,715

Page 3 Friday, September 30, 2005 8 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego County MPO ID: CNTY30 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Lake Morena Pacific Crest Trail Staging Exempt Category: Other - Non construction related activities. DESCRIPTION: New Project - expansion of staging area and facilities for users of Pacific Crest Trail CHANGE REASON: NEW PROJECT

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $41 $41 $41 RTP $164 $164 $164 TOTAL $205 $41 $164 $41 $164

Page 4 Friday, September 30, 2005 9 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego, City of MPO ID: SD01 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Alvarado Canyon Road Realignment DESCRIPTION: From Fairmount Ave/Camino Del Rio N. to Fairmount Ave/Mission Gorge Rd - relocate intersection (CIP: 52-713.0) CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $4,900 $1,500 $1,700 $1,700 $365 $2,635 $1,900 TransNet - L $10 $10 $10 TOTAL $4,910 $1,500 $1,710 $1,700 $375 $2,635 $1,900

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $4,900 $1,500 $1,700 $1,700 $365 $2,635 $1,900 TOTAL $4,900 $1,500 $1,700 $1,700 $365 $2,635 $1,900

MPO ID: SD106 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Mission Beach Bulkhead Preservation DESCRIPTION: Balboa Court to Pacific Beach Drive - preserves bulkhead including replacing concrete deck and restoring wall (CIP 527190) CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $420 $220 $200 $420 TOTAL $420 $220 $200 $420

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $220 $220 $220 TOTAL $220 $220 $220

MPO ID: SD16 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Sorrento Creek Mitigation DESCRIPTION: Environmental mitigation for Sorrento West project (CIP 12-134.0) CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $66 $66 $66 TOTAL $66 $66 $66

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $36 $36 $36 TOTAL $36 $36 $36

Page 5 Friday, September 30, 2005 10 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 12 San Diego Region (in $000s)

San Diego, City of MPO ID: SD16A Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: Traffic Signals Exempt Category: Other - Traffic signal synchronization projects. DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal improvements(CIP 62-001/002/316, 63-002, 68-001/010/011, 62-275/63-023/62-318/62-292) CHANGE REASON: Revise Lump Sum List - No Change To Programming

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $5,160 $2,250 $970 $970 $970 $5,160 TOTAL $5,160 $2,250 $970 $970 $970 $5,160

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON TransNet - L $5,160 $2,250 $970 $970 $970 $5,160 TOTAL $5,160 $2,250 $970 $970 $970 $5,160

MPO ID: SD51 Capacity Status: NCI RTIP #: 04-12 TITLE: North Torrey Pines Road Bridge DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge at Los Penasquitos Creek (CIP 53-050.0) CHANGE REASON: Revise Funding - Increase Funding

TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $208 $208 $208 TransNet - L $2,640 $1,717 $823 $100 $653 $1,987 TOTAL $2,848 $1,925 $823 $100 $653 $2,195

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TOTAL PRIOR 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 PE RW CON Local Funds $208 $208 $208 TransNet - L $2,540 $1,717 $823 $553 $1,987 TOTAL $2,748 $1,925 $823 $553 $2,195

Page 6 Friday, September 30, 2005 11 RTIP Fund Types

APCD = Air Pollution Control District BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs BTA = Bicycle Transportation Account (State)

CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Federal)

CBI = Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program (Federal)

DEMO-TEA 21 = High Priority Demonstration Program under TEA-21 (Federal)

DEMO-LU High Priority Demonstration Program under SAFETEA-LU (Federal)

HBRR = Highway Bridge Repair & Replacement (Federal)

HUD = Housing and Urban Development (Federal)

IBRC = Innovative Bridge Research & Construction (Federal)

IMD = Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (Federal)

JARC = Jobs Access Reverse Commute (Federal)

NCPD = National Corridor Planning & Development (Federal - part of CBI)

PLH = Public Lands Highway (Federal)

RSTP = Regional Surface Transportation Program (Federal)

RTP = Recreational Trails Program (Federal)

SHOPP = State Highway Operation & Protection Program (for Caltrans use only)

STIP-IIP = State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program (State)

STIP-RIP = State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement Program (State) = Surface Transportation Program under FHWA Administrative Program (congressionally STP directed appropriations)

TCI = Transit Capital Improvement Program (State, no longer exists)

TCRP = Traffic Congestion Relief Program (State)

TCSP = Transportation & Community & System Preservation (Federal)

TSM = Transportation Systems Management (State)

TDA = Transportation Development Act (State)

TDA-B = Transportation Development Act-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities (State)

TEA = Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (Federal)

TransNet -H = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Highway (Local)

TransNet-78 = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - SR 78 (Local)

TransNet -L = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Local Streets & Roads (Local)

TransNet -T = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit (Local)

TransNet -MC = Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Major Corridors (Local)

TransNet-TSI = Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit System Improvements (Local)

TransNet -LSI = Prop. A Extension Local Transportation Sales Tax -Local System Improvements (Local) 12 RTIP Fund Types

Section 5307 = Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program

Section 5309 = Federal Transit Administration Discretionary Program

Section 5309 NS = Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - New Starts Program

Section 5309 FG = Federal Transit Administration Fixed Guideway Modernization (Rail Mod)

Section 5311 = Federal Transit Administration Rural Program

Section 5310 = Federal Transit Administration Elderly & Disabled Program

13 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

Action Requested: APPROVE

AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR EL CAJON BOULEVARD/I-15 BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) EARLY ACTION PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS File Number 3001700

Introduction

The Mid-City Transit Plaza is located on the bridge deck over Interstate 15 (I-15) on El Cajon Boulevard. The City received federal Transportation Enhancement Act (TEA) grants for community enhancements and elected to spend the money on developing this transit plaza for existing and future BRT services. The bridge has been built to accommodate space on the bridge deck for transit station platforms, ticket vending, retail uses, public restrooms, etc. The deck is designed to accommodate vertical circulation (/stairs) to the future BRT transit station planned for the median of I-15 below this plaza deck. The I-15 BRT service to this station is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TransNet Early Action Program. There are also three existing routes that currently use freeway ramp stops that would relocate to the median stations below the plaza decks. The plaza deck enhancements at El Cajon Boulevard are illustrated in Attachment 1.

SANDAG and City of San Diego staffs have developed a draft agreement to provide for all future needs now to avoid retrofit work and cutting trenches in the finished plaza surface at a later date. The agreement would fully cover design and construction costs, not to exceed $90,000.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to authorize the Executive Director to sign an agreement with the City of San Diego for the design and installation of conduit and substructures in advance for electrical, communication, water, and other utilities needed for the future BRT station on I-15 at El Cajon Boulevard. The agreement would be in substantially the same form as Attachment 2.

Discussion

A number of meetings have transpired with the City of San Diego to discuss SANDAG's interest in and ability to provide additional monies to include sufficient electrical service/connections for the future I-15 BRT station in the Mid-City area (below the deck on the freeway). Currently, the City of San Diego is doing work to provide electrical service to the plaza deck for its needs, which would also include electrical service for our plaza deck ticket machines and next vehicle displays. The City did not plan to provide the higher level of electrical service eventually needed for the elevators,

lighting, and station amenities for the future platform along I-15. SANDAG is requesting that the City provide for future electrical needs now to save costs, disruption, and permitting later.

JACK BODA Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation

Attachments: 1. Visual Simulation of Transit Plaza at El Cajon Blvd. 2. Cooperative Agreement between SANDAG and City of San Diego regarding El Cajon Boulevard/I-15 BRT Construction Enhancements

Key Staff Contact: Frank E. Owsiany, (619) 699-6948, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1 Mid-City El Cajon Blvd. Transit Plaza

3 Attachment 2

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO REGARDING EL CAJON BOULEVARD/I-15 BRT CONSTRUCTION ENHANCEMENTS

This Cooperative Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of this ______day of October, 2005, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) and the City of San Diego (“City”).

RECITALS

The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:

WHEREAS, SANDAG has identified the Interstate 15 (I-15) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Station at El Cajon Boulevard as part of the TransNet Early Action Program; and

WHEREAS, the City has commissioned the design and construction of the Mid-City Transit Plaza on El Cajon Boulevard (“Plaza”); and

WHEREAS, City construction is currently underway to provide electrical, communication, and utility services to the Plaza, including such services for SANDAG’s needs at the Plaza; and

WHEREAS, SANDAG wishes to include station enhancements at the Plaza to serve the future I-15 BRT Station Early Action Project at El Cajon Boulevard (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the parties believe it will be a more efficient use of resources for the City to include certain work on the Project in its current work on the Plaza; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this Agreement to carry out the purposes set forth above;

AGREEMENT

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

SANDAG AGREES:

1. To contribute $90,000 to the City to be used solely for expenses related to installation of conduit and substructures for future electrical and communications services, as well as water and other utilities for the Project, as described in further detail in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A.

4 2. To pay the City these funds in a lump sum within 45 days of submission by the City to SANDAG of an invoice/requisition and supporting documentation.

3. To additionally participate in the Project by absorbing its own staff costs.

4. Neither City nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANDAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless City, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this Agreement.

CITY AGREES:

1. It has contracted for various construction services related to the Plaza and will incorporate the Project scope of work described in Exhibit A into the City’s work currently under progress at the Plaza.

2. To provide the necessary project administration and management in order to incorporate the Project scope of work described in Exhibit A into the City’s work currently under progress at the Plaza.

3. To carry out the work described herein in consideration for a one-time payment by SANDAG in the amount of $90,000.

4. Neither SANDAG nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, City shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANDAG, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Metro Builders and Engineers Group, Ltd. under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to City under this Agreement.

THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE:

1. That all obligations of SANDAG under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of the required resources by SANDAG and the approval of the SANDAG Board of Directors.

5 2. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement may be personally served on the other party, by the party giving notice, or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses:

For SANDAG For City of San Diego Attn: Frank E. Owsiany Attn: Sue McDevitt 401 B Street, Suite 800 600 B Street, Fourth Floor, MS 904 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101

3. That unless it is amended by the parties in writing, this Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2006, or on such earlier or later date as the parties may agree to in writing.

4. The indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall survive termination of the Agreement.

5. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of California.

6. All terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto, and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.

7. For purposes of this Agreement, the relationship of the parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations.

8. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

9. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of the parties to this Agreement.

10. This Agreement may be executed in any number of identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each party has signed one such counterpart.

6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective on the day and year first above written.

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

GARY L. GALLEGOS JEFF KAWAR Executive Director Deputy Director Community and Economic Development Dept

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of General Counsel Legal Counsel

Attachment: Scope of Work

7 AGREEMENT REGARDING EL CAJON BOULEVARD/ I-15 BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) CONSTRUCTION ENHANCEMENTS EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK

The Mid-City Transit Plaza is located on the bridge deck over Interstate 15 (I-15) on El Cajon Boulevard. The City received federal Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) grants for community enhancements many years ago and the Mid-City community elected to spend the money on developing this transit plaza for existing and future BRT services. The plaza has been built, and includes space on the bridge deck for transit station platforms, ticket vending, retail uses, public restrooms, etc. The deck is designed to accommodate vertical circulation (elevators/stairs) to the future BRT transit station planned for the median of I-15 below El Cajon Boulevard. The I-15 BRT services to this station is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TransNet Early Action Project. There are also three existing routes that currently use freeway ramp stops that would relocate to the median stations below the plaza decks. Under this Scope of Work, the City of San Diego will provide design, engineering, and construction services for the following items of work:

• Design and engineering of electrical requirements (per SDG&E [San Diego Gas & Electric] standards) for I-15 BRT station at El Cajon Boulevard.

• Traffic control along El Cajon Boulevard and I-15 on-ramp, including all permitting fees.

• Trenching from SDG&E point of connection to proposed transformer pad, including up to 4 inch conduit and associated pullboxes.

• Transformer pad and grounding per SDG&E specifications.

• Weatherproof metered switchgear and concrete housekeeping pad per SDG&E specifications.

• Two sets of feeders from the switchgear to the main buildings (located on the plaza deck), and a third conduit opportunity via pullbox in the electrical room for future electrical requirements to underside of bridge.

• Two (2) three-phase panels and associated transformation in each of two electrical rooms for power distribution to bridge decks per design drawings.

• Conduit stub-out opportunity to the lower reaches of the bridge (near support of upper bent).

• SDG&E inspection of aforementioned elements.

• Mobilization.

• As-built drawings/documentation upon completion of construction.

8 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5

Action Requested: RECOMMEND

ADDENDA TO THE MASTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN SANDAG, NCTD, AND MTS File Number 8000100

Introduction

A Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SANDAG, NCTD, and MTS was entered into in April 2004, with the intent to append the MOU as needed. The attached Addenda numbers 3 and 4 formalize the methodology to be used for allocating funding between SANDAG and NCTD and SANDAG and MTS, respectively, for the administrative functions that transferred in consolidation.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve Addendum 3 and Addendum 4 to the Master MOU between SANDAG, NCTD, and MTS.

Discussion

In February 2003 and June 2003, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the initial and subsequent transition plans that focused on the roles and responsibilities of SANDAG and the transit agencies. The transition plans were subsequently memorialized in an MOU between SANDAG, NCTD, and MTS. The MOU recognized that addenda would be executed as the functions and responsibilities of the three agencies evolved.

Each year as part of the budget process (beginning in FY 2004), both NCTD and MTS transfer Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding to SANDAG to pay for the administrative functions that transferred to SANDAG as a result of the consolidation. All three agencies desire to formalize this transfer by expressing it in terms of a percentage of their total annual TDA allocation. The attached addenda to the MOU accomplish this objective.

RENEE WASMUND Director of Finance

Attachments: 1. Addendum Number 3 to the Master MOU 2. Addendum Number 4 to the Master MOU

Key Staff Contact: Renée Wasmund, (619) 699-1940, [email protected] Attachment 1

ADDENDUM NUMBER THREE TO THE MASTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD DEFINING THE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE THREE AGENCIES: FUNDING OF FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 1703

This Addendum Number Three is made and entered into this ______day of ______, 2005, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NCTD).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding between the San Diego Association of Governments, the North San Diego County Transit Development Board, and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (now Metropolitan Transit System) Defining the Functions and Responsibilities of the Three Agencies (“Memorandum of Understanding”) has been entered into; and

WHEREAS, the agencies seek to append the Memorandum of Understanding with this Addendum Number Three to describe the methodology for ongoing funding of functions transferred from NCTD to SANDAG under SB 1703.

IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Funding for said transfer of functions and responsibilities shall be provided directly to SANDAG from the annual TDA 4.0 apportionment.

2. SANDAG shall receive 1.6 percent of NCTD’s annual available TDA apportionment, which includes Article 4.0 and Article 4.5 ($31,119,187 for FY 2006).

3. No other funds shall be transferred from NCTD to SANDAG for functions transferred to SANDAG under SB 1703, except as may be otherwise identified in the Master MOU.

4. This concludes all the funding transfers pursuant to SB 1703, other than the future transfers to occur pursuant to the MOU executed on December 1, 2003, between SANDAG and NCTD for the Project Development and Construction functions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum on the date and year first written above.

2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD

By:______By:______C. Michael Cowett, General Counsel Karen King, Executive Director of Best Best & Krieger

APPROVED AS TO FORM: SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

By:______By:______Office of the General Counsel Gary L. Gallegos, Executive Director

3 Attachment 2

ADDENDUM NUMBER FOUR TO THE MASTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD DEFINING THE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE THREE AGENCIES: FUNDING OF FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 1703

This Addendum Number FOUR is made and entered into this ______day of ______, 2005, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, also known as the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding between the San Diego Association of Governments, the North San Diego County Transit Development Board, and the Metropolitan Transit System Defining the Functions and Responsibilities of the Three Agencies (“Memorandum of Understanding”) has been entered into; and

WHEREAS, the agencies seek to append the Memorandum of Understanding with this Addendum Number Five to describe the methodology for ongoing funding of functions transferred under SB 1703.

IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:

Transfers of functions from SANDAG to MTS that have already taken place are three Service Planners, one Right-of-Way Manager and one Manager of Business Development

1. This MOU contemplates that the TDA allocation formula in (3) below has been adjusted by $400,000 to allow MTS to hire certain staff to fulfill its obligations under consolidation. Additionally, MTS will take responsibility for website content (SANDAG retains overall responsibility for website development). SANDAG will take responsibility for the pass by mail program.

2. Funding for said transfer of functions and responsibilities shall be provided directly to SANDAG from the annual TDA 4.0 apportionment.

3. SANDAG shall receive 2.78% of MTS’ annual available TDA apportionment which includes Article 4.0, Article 4.5 and TDA 10% ($78,753,413 in FY 06). This percentage accounts for the transfers of people in (1) above and transfers of functions in (2) above, if applicable.

4. This is the final adjustment related to consolidation. Any future needs shall be handled by each respective agency as part of the overall budget process.

4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Addendum on the date and year first written above.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

By:______By:______Office of the General Counsel Paul Jablonski, Chief Executive Officer

APPROVED AS TO FORM: SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

By:______By:______Office of the General Counsel Gary Gallegos, Executive Director

5 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.:6

Action Requested: RECOMMEND

AMENDMENTS TO TransNet POLICIES File Number 1110200

Introduction

Amendments are proposed to TransNet-related policies, previously adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in its role as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), in order to incorporate references to Ordinance 04-01, the extension of the original TransNet Ordinance known as Ordinance 87-1. Additional changes are recommended to these previous policies for clarification, and Policy No. 17, concerning fiscal and compliance audits, has been proposed as a new policy. If recommended for approval by the Transportation Committee, the proposed amendments and new policy will be presented to the Board of Directors at its November 18, 2005, meeting for final approval.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the proposed amendments to the TransNet policies.

Discussion

Following enactment of the original TransNet Ordinance in 1987, the Board approved various policies to implement the provisions of the Ordinance. The provisions of TransNet Extension Ordinance 04-01 also need to be referenced in the TransNet policies in order to update them in preparation for implementation of the TransNet Extension. Attachment 1 shows the proposed TransNet policy amendments. Most of the proposed amendments are merely updates or clarifications to previously approved policies. Policy No. 17 is a newly proposed policy. The background for this proposed policy is further discussed below.

Policy No. 17: Fiscal and Compliance Audits

The San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plans (Ordinances 87-1 and 04-01) specify certain requirements for the recipients of TransNet funds, including a requirement for an annual fiscal and compliance audit of each recipient of TransNet funds. The RTC is responsible for the administration of the TransNet program and allocation of funds. Sections 13 (87-1) and 14 (04-01) of the Ordinances authorize the RTC to establish “rules and take such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities.” The purpose of this proposed policy is to establish more detailed guidelines for the annual fiscal and compliance audit for those agencies in receipt of TransNet funds.

The current TransNet program, which continues through Fiscal Year 2008, provides funding for highway, transit, local street and road, and bicycle projects. The TransNet Extension provides

funding for major corridors; transit (new rail operations, ongoing operations, and senior and disabled programs); local streets and roads and other local projects; environmental mitigation; and bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood safety programs.

Projects funded with TransNet are included as part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which is updated every two years. The RTC approves the RTIP including the TransNet Program of Projects (POP). The TransNet Ordinances include specific requirements for the use of TransNet funds. The annual fiscal and compliance audits serve as the verification that these requirements have been met for each recipient.

SANDAG contracts with an independent accounting firm to audit all agencies that receive TransNet funds on an annual basis. The audit certifies that the agencies have met the requirements of the TransNet Ordinance. The audit process is expected to be completed during the fiscal year following the end of the fiscal year being audited so that the results will be known prior to programming and allocation decisions for the subsequent fiscal year.

Section 8 of both the current and TransNet Extension Ordinances requires a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) compliance test. Revenues from TransNet are to supplement (not replace) existing local discretionary revenues being used for local transportation purposes. The Ordinances establish a base year in which to determine the required MOE level. As part of the annual audit process, each agency must demonstrate that it maintained the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes as was expended during the MOE base year. The current TransNet program established the 1984-85 fiscal year as the base year. For the TransNet Extension, the base year is the average over fiscal years 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03 (as reported in the State Controller’s Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads). For the TransNet Extension, the MOE will be subject to adjustment every three years, based on the Construction Cost Index developed by Caltrans. Compliance with the MOE is verified via the annual fiscal and compliance audit.

Over the past few years, the audit process has taken longer to complete. Some of the delays have been due to new or additional audit requirements and others have been due to schedule conflicts for audit field visits and related issues. Audits should be completed within six months, but no later than nine months after the end of the fiscal year. Without the audits, SANDAG is unable to verify that the agencies are in compliance with the TransNet Ordinance, including the MOE. The new proposed Policy No. 17 provides a more detailed timeline for completion of the annual audits, a requirement for suspending TransNet payments in cases where the fiscal audits are not completed in a timely manner, and additional details related to various adjustments to be made based on the annual audit findings.

CRAIG H. SCOTT TransNet Program Manager

Attachment: 1. TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Policies

Key Staff Contact: Craig Scott, (619) 699-1926, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

TRANSNET ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN POLICIES

Policy #1: Procedure for Distribution of Revenues for Transportation Services for Seniors and the Disabled

Adoption Date: February 26, 1988 (Resolution RC88-2)

Amendment: Proposed for Repeal at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting. This policy was superseded by Policy No. 11.

Policy Text: The transportation sales tax revenues made available under Section 4(B)(1) of Ordinance 87-1 for improved transportation services for seniors and disabled persons shall be distributed to eligible service providers based 80 percent in proportion to the senior and disabled population for each provider’s service area and 20 percent in proportion to the geographic size of each service area.

Policy #2: Loan of Funds for Privately-Funded Projects

Adoption Date: April 22, 1988 (Resolution RC88-5)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: The Commission may approve a loan of sales tax funds to a city or county from its formula-based share of local street and road funds to finance a project which is prohibited from receiving funding under Section 9 of Commission Ordinance 87-1 or Section _8_ of Ordinance 04-01 if the following terms and conditions are met.

1. A finding is made by the Commission that absent private sector funding, the project would be an eligible street and road project.

2. The City or County agrees to enter into an agreement to repay the loan plus interest (at a rate determined by the Commission) prior to the termination of the sales tax in accordance with Section 3 of Commission Ordinance 87-1 or Section _3__ of Ordinance 04-01.

3. That the City or County agrees to guarantee repayment of the loan if private developer funding is determined to be inadequate to repay the loan prior to termination of the sales tax.

Policy # 3: Reimbursement of Local Funds to Advance Approved Projects

`Adoption Date: May 27, 1988 (Resolution RC88-6)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: A city or county may advance improvements on a project(s) which is included in the approved transportation sales tax program of projects with local agency funds (other than private developer funds as set forth in Section 9 of Ordinance 87-1 or Section _8__ of Ordinance 04-01) prior to sales tax funds 3 being available and receive reimbursement including interest from sales tax funds if it is determined by the Commission that the following terms and conditions are met.

1. The project(s) is included in the approved transportation sales tax program of projects, and no other financing technique is found to be more desirable or cost effective to utilize in order to advance the improvement.

2. The city or county shall be reimbursed for the local funds expended as soon as sales tax funds become available, or on a schedule agreed to between the local agency and the Commission.

3. That no more than _30% of the funds will be used for maintenance projects if the funds are borrowed from TransNet revenues pursuant to Section _2(C)(1)__ of Ordinance 04-01.

Policy #4: SR 78 Corridor Reserve Fund Allocation Policies

Adoption Date: Originally Adopted May 26, 1989 (Resolution R-89-82) Wording changed December 14, 1990 (Resolution RC91-10)

Repealed: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: For purposes of allocating funds under Section 2(a)(3) in Ordinance 87-1

1. Only those projects designated as "funded" on the SR 78 Corridor project list approved on December 13, 1990 by the SR 78 Corridor Policy Committee are eligible to receive SR 78 Corridor Reserve Funds.

2. The list of SR 78 Corridor projects and their priority and funding eligibility may be revised by a majority vote of the SR 78 Corridor Policy Committee and the approval of the Board of Directors.

3. The basic contribution for a non-Caltrans project on the SR 78 Corridor Reserve funded list is 50 percent of the estimated right-of-way, engineer- ing and construction costs. However, the total amount of Corridor Reserve Funds designated for projects within one jurisdiction may be allocated to vary from the basic 50 percent for any given project as long as the cumulative total for programmed projects at any point in time does not exceed 50 percent.

4. The basic contribution for a Caltrans project on the SR 78 Corridor Reserve funded list is 100 percent of the estimated right-of-way, engineering, and construction costs.

5. Contributions from the SR 78 Corridor Reserve Fund to any one jurisdiction cannot exceed 50 percent (100 percent for Caltrans) of the project cost estimates shown on the approved funded list of December 13, 1990. If actual project costs are less than estimated, a maximum contribution of 50 percent (100 percent for Caltrans) of the new costs shall be in effect.

4 6. A project that for any reason is removed from the funded list can only be replaced by the next highest ranked unfunded project (or projects), regardless of jurisdiction and only if the funded list of projects does not exceed the total Corridor Reserve dollars available. As with other funded projects, Corridor Reserve funds can only be used to improve the replacement project(s) to minimal four-lane standards (six lanes at freeway interchanges). Added June 22, 1990 (Resolution RC90-40):

7. SR 78 Corridor Reserve funds for right-of-way will not be encumbered until a project has environmental clearance and the first 25 percent of the total value of the right-of-way is acquired. When a total of 75 percent of the right-of-way has been acquired, the construction funds will be encumbered at the request of the agency. Added December 14, 1990 (Resolution RC91-10):

8. All agencies submitting projects from the SR 78 Corridor Funded Project List for programming are encouraged to pursue matching funds from the State's SB 300 program. Added February 22, 1991 (Resolution RC91-13):

9. Any new source of state highway funds for the San Diego Region should be considered for allocation to the TransNet SR 78 Corridor Reserve to offset local funds which were used for projects which are normally the responsibility of the State, such as freeway-freeway interchange improvements and ramp metering systems.

Policy # 5: Use of Local Street and Road TransNet Funds for the Development of Transportation Demand Management Programs

Adoption Date: August 25, 1989 (Resolution RC90-23)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: The development and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program shall be an eligible use of Local Street and Road funds pursuant to Section 19(E) of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Ordinance 87-1 and Section _21(c)_ of Ordinance 04-01. Transportation Demand Management shall mean a comprehensive set of strategies designed to influence travel behavior with respect to mode, time, frequency, route, or distance in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local streets and roads. Principal strategy measures involve, but are not limited to, ridesharing, alternative work hours, and parking management.

5 Policy # 6: Fund Accounting and Interest Allocation

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: For the purposes of determining compliance with Section 12 of the Ordinance 87-1 and Section 13__ of Ordinance 04-01, each agency shall maintain a separate fund (fund accounting) for TransNet revenues, if possible. Where the creation of a separate fund is not possible due to accounting methodology used by the agency, an alternative approach to maintaining separate accountability for TransNet revenue and expenditures must be developed and submitted to the Commission staff for concurrence. Interest earned on TransNet revenues received by the agency must be allocated to the TransNet fund and used only for projects approved by the Commission in the Program of Projects. For accounting purposes, the interest earnings shall be considered to be expended first. Further, the Ordinances allow the agencies to retain any unused TransNet funds. Interest accrued should be applied to each active project that carries an outstanding balance. The agency can determine the method of the interest distribution to be validated by the audit.

Policy # 7: Program of Projects Amendments

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: A Program of Projects amendment shall be initiated when a local agency desires to add a new project to the approved Program of Projects, to drop an approved project in its entirety, or to change the TransNet funds programmed for a project by $50,000$2 million or 10% of total project, whichever is greaterless. The amendment must be approved by the Commission prior to the expenditure of funds on the new or amended projects.

Policy # 8: Determination of New Transit Services

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: For the purpose of determining compliance with Section 4(B)(2)(c) or Ordinance 87-1, the level of service provided in FY88 shall be considered at the base level of service in existence prior to the availability of TransNet revenues which must be maintained through other funding sources. Compliance with the “new” service requirement shall be determined using the following procedure:

1. Determine the number of vehicle service miles operated during the fiscal year using TransNet revenues for any given operator by dividing the TransNet revenues for operations by the total systemwide operating cost

6 for that operator and multiplying the total vehicle service miles operated by the quotient.

2. Subtract the number of miles determined in Step 1 from the total system vehicle service miles operated during the year.

3. If the adjusted number of miles from step 2 is greater than or equal to they FY88 base level, then the compliance test is met.

34. The attached table of base statistics from FY88 (Attachment 1) will be used to determine compliance. These figures reflect all publicly-funded operators within the MTDB (MTS) and NSDCTDB (NCTD) service areas (Articles 4, 4.5, and 8) because TransNet revenues could potentially be used by the operatorsMTDB and NSDCTDB to fund service improvements on any of these systems.

Policy # 9: Use of TransNet Revenue for Bus Purchases

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: TransNet revenues may be used to support the purchase of buses required to operate new services funded with TransNet revenues. The number of buses which can be purchased with TransNet revenues shall be determined using the following procedures.

1. Determine the number of annual new vehicle service miles service being operated in accordance with Policy Number 8 – Determination of New Transit Services.

2. Divide the number of new miles of service by the systemwide average annual vehicle services miles per bus for a given operator to determine the equivalent number of buses required to operate the new service. Round up to the nearest whole number of bus equivalents.

The TransNet revenues used for bus purchases shall come out of the revenues available under Section 4(B)(2)(c) of the TransNet Ordinance 87-1. The use of TransNet revenues for bus purchases shall be used to the maximum extent possible as matching funds for available state and federal capital funds. If, at some point in the future, the number of buses purchased with TransNet revenues cannot be justified based on the number of new miles being operated with TransNet revenues, then a pro-rated reimbursement to the TransNet fund will be required based on the remaining useful life of the vehicles. TransNet revenues may not be used to support the purchase of replacement buses for the “existing” (FY88) level of service. Any buses purchases with TransNet revenues will remain under the ownership of MTDB (MTS) or NSDCTDB (NCTD) and be made available to the operator chosen to operate the new services.

7 Policy #10: Use of TransNet Revenues to Replace Reduced State and Federal Operating Support

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: For purposes of determining compliance with Section 4(B)(2)(c) of the TransNet Ordinance 87-1, the maximum amount of TransNet funds that MTDB (MTS) or NSDCTDB (NCTD) are eligible to use to replace federal funds in a given year is equal to the FY 87 base year levels of federal and state operating support ($6,113,307 for MTSDB and $2,511,816 for NCTDSDCTDB) less the amount of state and federal operating support available in that year. The priority on the use of funds under this section is to provide new service improvements. MTSDB and NCTDSDCTDB are encouraged to use other available revenues, such as Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, to offset reductions in state and federal funds, if possible, and to use TransNet funds under theseis sections for new service improvements.

Policy #11: Use of TransNet Revenues for Transportation Services for Seniors and the Disabled

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: The funds made available under Section 4(B)(1) of the TransNet Ordinance 87- 1 or Section 4(c)(1)__ of Ordinance 04-01 for improved transportation services for seniors and the disabled shall be used to augment the revenues made available under the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 program for the same purposes. These TransNet funds shall be allocated to eligible service providers using the fund distribution formula approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors for use in distributing the TDA Article 4.5 funds. For accounting purposes, following the expenditure of fare revenues and other local and other local operating revenues, the interest earnings on the TransNet and TDA funds shall be considered to be spent first, followed by the TransNet funds, then the TDA funds.

Policy #12: Use of TransNet Revenues for Accessibility Improvements

Adoption Date: March 23, 1990 (Resolution RC90-35)

Policy Text: In the development of TransNet-funded local street and road projects, local jurisdictions may include, within the street right-of-way, improvements to enhance accessibility to the transportation system, including, but not limited to, accessibility improvements to areas.

8 Policy #13: Investment Policy

Adoption Date: July 27, 1990 (Resolution RC91-2)

Amendment: Proposed for Repeal at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: Note: This policy has been superceded by the Annual Investment Policy Update (see Resolution 2006-06 approved at the September 23, 2005, SANDAG Board of Directors meeting.

I.Introduction

The purpose of this document is to identify various policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment policy and to organize and formalize investment-related activities.

The investment policies and practices of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (the Commission) are based on state law and prudent money management. All funds will be invested in accordance with the Commission’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Sections 53601, 53601.1, 53601.5, 53535 and 53635.5. The investment of bond proceeds will be further restricted by the provisions of relevant bond documents.

II.Scope

It is intended that this policy cover all funds and investment activities under the direction of the Commission.

III.Objectives

Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that ensures the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The Commission seeks to attain market rates of return on its investments, consistent with the constraints imposed by its safety objective and cash flow considerations.

IV.Delegation of Authority

The management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the Director of Finance and Administration, who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the limits of this policy. The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow the policy and such other written instructions as are provided.

V.Internal Controls

The Commission shall establish a set of internal controls by which shall be documented in writing. The internal controls will be reviewed by the Commission and with the independent auditor. The controls shall be designed to prevent employee error, misrepresentations by third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by officers or employees of the Commission.

9 VI.Permitted Investment Instruments

1. Government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.

2. Obligations issued by Banks for Cooperatives, Federal Land Banks, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks, Federal Farm Credit Banks, Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or in obligations, participations, or other instruments of, or issued by, or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the Federal National Mortgage Association; or in guaranteed portions of Small Business Administration notes; or in obligations, participations, or other instruments of, or issued by, a federal agency or a United States government-sponsored enterprise, or such agencies or enterprises which may be created.

3. Repurchase Agreements used solely as short-term investments not to exceed 90 days.

The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in VI. 1 and 2, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying Repurchase Agreements must be delivered to the Commission’s custodian bank versus payment. The total of all collateral for each Repurchase Agreement must equal or exceed, on the basis of market value plus accrued interest, 103 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment unless the term of the investment is overnight, in which case the total of all collateral for the Repurchase Agreement must equal or exceed, on the basis of market value plus accrued interest, 100 percent of the total dollar value of the invest- ment. For any Repurchase Agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on a regular basis.

Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral.

The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to Repurchase Agreement.

The Commission may enter into Repurchase Agreements with: (1) primary dealers in U.S. Government securities who are eligible to transact business with, and who report to, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and (2) California and non-California banking institutions having assets in excess of $1 billion and in the highest short-term rating category as provided by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or standard & Poor’s Corporation.

The Commission will have specific written agreements with each firm with which it enters into Repurchase Agreements.

Reverse repurchase agreements will not be offered without the prior specific consent of the Commission.

4. Banker’s Acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System, the short-term paper of which is rated in the highest category by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or by Standard & Poor’s Corporation.

Purchases of Banker’s Acceptances may not exceed 270 days’ maturity or 40 percent of the Commission’s surplus money. No more than 10 percent of the Commission’s surplus funds may be invested in the Banker’s Acceptances of any one commercial bank.

5. Commercial paper rated in the highest short-term rating category, as provided by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation; provided that the 10 issuing corporation is organized and operating within the United States, has total assets in excess of $500 million and has an “A” or higher rating for its long-term debt, if any, as provided by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation.

Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days’ maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation.

Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 15 percent of the Commission’s surplus money which may be invested. An additional 15 percent, or a total of 30 percent of the Commission’s surplus money, may be invested only if the dollar weighted average of the entire amount does not exceed 31 days.

6. Medium-term corporate notes issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Medium-term corporate notes shall be rated in a rating category “AA” or its equivalent or better by a nationally-recognized rating service.

Purchase of medium-term corporate notes may not exceed 30 percent of the agency’s surplus money.

7. Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally- or state-chartered bank or a state or federal savings and loan association or by a state-licensed branch of a foreign bank; provided that the senior debt obligations of the issuing institution are rated “AA” or better by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation.

Purchase of negotiable certificates of deposit may not exceed 30 percent of the Commission’s surplus money.

8. State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund

9. San Diego County Investment Pool

10. Insured savings account or money market account

11. The California Arbitrage Management Program

12. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies, as defined in Section 23701m of the Revenue and Taxation Code, investing in the securities and obligations authorized by sections a through 1 of Government Code section 53601. To be eligible for investment pursuant to this subdivision, these companies shall either: (1) attain the highest ranking letter or numerical rating provided by not less than two of the three largest nationally-recognized ratings services; or (2) have an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience investing in securities and obligations authorized by Government Code Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of $500,000,000.

The purchase price of shares shall not exceed 15 percent of the Commission’s surplus money.

11 VII.Maximum Security

Investment maturities shall be based on a review of cash flow forecasts. Maturities will be scheduled so as to permit the Commission to meet all project obligations.

The maximum maturity will be no more than five years from purchase date to maturity date.

VIII.Reporting Requirements

Monthly investment reports [JWI1]shall be submitted to the Commission by the last business day after month end. The reports shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each individual investment:

ƒDescription of investment instrument ƒInterest rate or yield to maturity ƒPurchase date ƒMaturity date ƒPurchase price ƒPar value ƒCurrent market value for securities with maturity greater than 12 months ƒDiscount or premiums, if any ƒAccrued interest paid at purchase, if any ƒAccrued interest to date ƒPortfolio average maturity ƒOverall portfolio yield

IX.Safekeeping and Custody

The assets of the Commission shall be secured through third-party custody and safekeeping procedures. Bearer instruments shall be held only through third-party institutions. Collateral- ized securities, such as repurchase agreements, shall be purchased using the delivery vs. payment procedure.

Policy #14: Capital Equipment Acquisition Loans to SANDAG

Adoption Date: November 16, 1990 (Resolution RC91-6)

Policy Text: The loan of unused administrative allocations from TransNet funds to SANDAG for the purpose of acquiring office and computer equipment is authorized when lower cost financing is not available. The repayment schedule shall be based upon funding authorized in the SANDAG-approved budget and will include interest at a rate equal to the interest earning rate of the San Diego County Pooled Money Fund.

Policy #15: Local Agency Hold Harmless Agreements

Adoption Date: October 25, 1992 (Resolution RC92-7)

Policy Text: Each local agency shall be required to hold harmless and defend the Commission against challenges related to local TransNet projects. This policy is

12 to be implemented by requiring that each local agency agree in its resolution approving its projects for TransNet funding to hold the Commission harmless.

Policy #16: Repayment of Commercial Paper Program Proceeds

Adoption Date: September 23, 2005

Amendment: Proposed for Amendment at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text: Each agency receiving proceeds from the TransNet Commercial Paper Program shall be responsible for its proportionate share of the ongoing interest and related administrative costs from the date the proceeds are received until the principal amount of the loan is fully repaid. Repayment of the principal amount shall commence within three years of the agency’s receipt of the proceeds and shall be completed within five years of the agency’s receipt of the proceeds. Repayment of the proceeds may be accomplished by rolling the outstanding amount into a long-term bond issue during the five year repayment period. In such cases, the agency would then be responsible for its proportionate share of the bond issuance costs and annual debt service costs. The repayment of debt, in all cases, is the first priority on the use of the agency’s share of annual TransNet revenues.

Policy #17: Fiscal and Compliance Audits

Adoption Date: Proposed for Adoption at November 18, 2005, Board Meeting

Policy Text:

I. Fiscal and Compliance Audit Procedures

The fiscal and compliance audit is an essential tool to determine that TransNet funds are being used for the intended purposes. The Commission has the fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the public funds are used in accordance with the TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. In order to complete the audits in a timely manner, SANDAG proposes the following:

A. July/August: SANDAG meets with the auditors to review the audits required for the year and provide all necessary documentation/information for the auditors to begin work.

B. September to November: Auditors schedule site visits. Recipient agencies must be ready and available to meet with the auditors and provide requested financial schedules and other information necessary for the completion of the audit.

C. November/December: Auditors issue draft reports to both SANDAG and the agencies. The agencies must be available to review and comment on the draft report in a timely manner. All outstanding issues should be resolved within four weeks.

D. December/January: Auditors issue the final reports. If there are outstanding issues, those should be resolved so that the audit is completed no later than March.

SANDAG Responsibility: SANDAG will provide all information necessary to complete the audit.

Agency Responsibility: All agencies must be ready for the site visit, provide requested information, and review and comment on the draft reports in a timely manner. 13 If the auditor is unable to complete the audit because an agency was not ready or did not provide the required information or reviews in a timely manner, then the agency will be deemed in non- compliance of the Ordinance. SANDAG will withhold future TransNet payments (except for required debt service payments) until the audit is completed.

The Ordinance states that the Commission:

[S]hall not allocate any revenues…to any eligible local agency in any fiscal year until that local agency has certified to the Commission that it will include in its budget for that fiscal year an amount of local discretionary funding for street and roads purposes at least equal to the minimum maintenance of effort requirement. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to verify that the Maintenance of Effort requirements were met. Any local agency which does not meet its Maintenance of Effort requirement in any given year shall have its funding reduced in the following year by the amount by which the agency did not meet its required Maintenance of Effort level. Any local street and road revenues not allocated pursuant to the Maintenance of Effort requirement shall be redistributed to the remaining eligible agencies according to the formula described in [the Ordinance].

Although there are no specific MOE requirements for the highway, transit, or other discretionary programs, the verification of fund usage is essential. Therefore, the withholding of TransNet fund payments applies to all agencies that do not have a completed audit.

II. Exceptions

SANDAG acknowledges the existence of unforeseen circumstances which may prevent an audit from completion. Should situations warrant an extension, the agencies must submit a request for an extension to be considered by the SANDAG Transportation Committee, including an explanation of the situation and specific timelines for completion of the audit.

III. Audit Adjustments

Specific Project Funding/Discretionary Programs

This section applies to funding allocated for the specified projects under the Highway and Transit Programs under Ordinance 87-1, including funding allocated for bicycle facility improvements. Under the TransNet Extension (Ordinance 04-01), this section applies to the Major Corridor funding (Section 4(A) and (B) and the four discretionary programs: (1) Transit Senior program (section 4(C)(2); (2) Local Environmental Mitigation program Section 4(D)(2); (3) Local Smart Growth Incentive program (Section 4(D)(3); and (4) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood Safety Program (Section 2(E).

After the projects are completed and there are funds remaining, the agency is required to return the money to the program. After the fiscal audit determines that the project has been completed, SANDAG will transmit a letter to the agency to return the funds to SANDAG. The agency must remit the balance within 60 days of the letter. Should an agency fail to respond in a timely manner, all future TransNet payments (including funds from the other programs) to that agency will be suspended until the funds are returned.

Local Street and Road Formula Program (Section 4(C) of Ordinance 87-1 and Section 4(D)(1) of Ordinance 04-01) and Transit Funding (Section 4(B) of Ordinance 87-1 and Sections 4(C)(1), 4(C)(3), and 4(C)(4)) of Ordinance 04-01.

14 The audit identifies the status of each project funded with TransNet funds – i.e., completed projects, projects that have negative balances, inactive projects, and ongoing projects. The agencies are responsible to work with the auditors to make proper adjustments as follows:

Completed projects: once a project is identified as completed and there are TransNet funds remaining with that project, the agency is required to transfer the balance to another TransNet eligible project (any project included in the approved RTIP). The audit should make note to which project the funds will be transferred. Completed projects should no longer show in the following year’s audit.

Projects with negative balances: an ongoing project or a completed project may have expended all the TransNet funds but the agency decided to augment with other funds. In this case, the project should show zero balance for the amount of TransNet expended rather than showing a negative balance. If the project is completed, then it should no longer show in the following year’s audit. If the project is ongoing and the agency intends to backfill the project with the following year’s TransNet funds, then it should be noted in the audit. However, this practice is discouraged as it will throw off the MOE calculation.

Inactive projects: if a project has had no activity over a period of two audits, the agency must either close out the project or note when the project will be completed. These projects should no longer show in the following year’s audit. Any remaining TransNet funds must be transferred to another TransNet eligible project.

IV. Local Agency Balance Limitations

Based on the audit, an agency that maintains a balance of more than 30 percent of their annual apportionment (after debt service payments) must use the remaining balance to fund projects. SANDAG will defer payment until the unused balances fall below the 30 percent threshold.

15 FY88 Base Year Statistics (for use in TransNet Ordinance Policy #8) Metropolitan Transit Development Board Area Vehicle Fund Source Operator/Service Service Miles

Article 4.0 Chula Vista Transit 559,734 National City Transit 276,303 County Transit System: ƒ Suburban Service 646,904 ƒ Rural Bus 170,953 ƒ Poway Fixed Route 313,425 San Diego Transit 10,473,323 San Diego Trolley 1,033,084 Strand Express Agency 400,738 Total 13,874,464

Article 8 County Transit System: ƒ Express Bus 189,276 Total 189,276

Article 4.0 Dial-A-Ride El Cajon Express 308,331 La Mesa Dial-A-Ride 251,516 Lemon Grove Dial-A-Ride 62,090 County Transit System: ƒ Poway Dial-A-Ride 23,030 ƒ Poway Airporter 103,925 ƒ Spring Valley Dial-A-Ride 73,298 San Diego Transit DART 309,370 Total 1,131,560

Article 4.5 Chula Vista Handytrans 128,807 County Transit System – WHEELS 219,906 National City Wheels 15,159 Poway Call-A-Ride 60,156 San Diego Dial-A-Ride 1,149,541 Total 1,573,623

MTDB Area Total 16,768,923

North San Diego County Transit Development Board Vehicle Fund Source Operator/Service Service Miles

Article 4.0 NCTD Fixed Route 7,651,408 NCTD FAST 126,744 Total 7,778,152

Article 4.5 NCTD Lifeline 386,680 Total 386,680

NSDCTDB Area Total 8,164,832

REGIONAL TOTAL 24,933,755

16 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7

Action Requested: INFORMATION

FREEWAY TRANSIT LANE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT File Number 5000900

Introduction

Over the past several years, SANDAG has been working toward increasing the speed and effectiveness of public transportation throughout the region. Over the long term, our Regional Transportation Plan calls for implementation of Managed Lanes and high occupancy vehicle facilities. Since these facilities will take a number of years to plan, design, and construct, we have been searching for an interim strategy for bypassing congested freeway corridors for existing commuter express bus services and our TransNet early action Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes.

A promising solution is an innovative concept that would allow the use of freeway shoulders as a transit priority measure. Used successfully in Minneapolis since 1992, the use of shoulders as a low- speed bypass of congested freeway lanes offers a low-cost, easily implementable strategy that will increase transit operating speeds, on-time performance, and trip reliability.

Working closely with our partners at the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), we are pleased to report that we will initiate a one-year demonstration project for Express Route 960 along the State Route 52 (SR 52)/Interstate 805 (I-805) corridor between Kearny Mesa and University City (see Attachment 1) starting in late October/early November.

As with any new idea, there have been a number of issues to address. The fact that these issues were satisfactorily resolved to allow us to implement the demonstration shows a strong willingness of our partners to explore innovative concepts for easing the impacts of congestion on our region. During the one-year demonstration period, substantial monitoring will be done to ascertain our ability to apply this concept to other corridors in the region. In addition, using the freeway shoulders in the planned Managed Lanes corridors will help build ridership patterns for future BRT routes.

Discussion

The intent of the freeway transit lane demonstration project is to gain local operational experience with the conversion of existing shoulder lanes to transit lanes during the peak periods. SR 52 and I-805 were chosen for the demonstration project due to sufficient shoulder widths and heavy peak- period congestion levels.

SANDAG staff has worked with MTS, Caltrans, and the CHP to develop an operating plan and gain mutual consensus on the goals of the project.

Project Objectives

Experience gained through the implementation of this project will be used to assess the ability to use freeway transit lanes in other corridors where existing express services and future BRT services will operate. The demonstration project will assess five key objectives.

• Safety – Is there any change in accident rates with buses using the transit-only lanes, and do CHP officers and Caltrans’ maintenance crews experience safety-related problems?

To gauge this we will evaluate accident data and meet with CHP staff throughout the process. SANDAG will also have trained staff on-board routinely to evaluate how the shoulders are operating and documenting any hazards or obstructions. Prior to the implementation of the project, Caltrans and SANDAG staff will videotape the shoulders and undertake a minor capital project to develop signage and re-striping for the shoulder.

• Bus Travel Time and Reliability – Do buses experience a measurable and repeatable time savings and enhanced trip reliability (on-time performance)?

SANDAG staff will monitor the performance of the route throughout the demonstration period. We are currently creating extensive baseline data for how the route is operating pre- demonstration; this includes collecting the baseline on-time performance, ridership, and accident data to do comparative analysis after the demonstration program is in place.

• Bus Driver and Passenger Perceptions – Do bus drivers feel safe using the transit-only lanes and are auto drivers comfortable with buses merging in and out of the transit-only lanes? Also, do transit riders perceive improved travel time and trip reliability and do they feel safe with the bus operating in the transit-only lane?

SANDAG’s Technical Services staff will be undertaking before and after surveys of bus drivers and passengers to determine their current perception of how the service operates versus how the route is operating after the demonstration period has started.

• Level of Service and Maintenance – Is there any reduction in freeway levels of service from the transit-only lanes, and is there an increased level of maintenance required?

Caltrans staff will be providing ongoing freeway loop data that will be used to evaluate the flow of main lane traffic. Information will be gained to assess if there are any impacts to main lane traffic as a result of the freeway transit lane demonstration project. In addition, SANDAG will be working with the CHP, Caltrans, and the Freeway Service Patrol contractors to maintain a clear shoulder for bus operations.

• Capital Improvements - What kinds of physical improvements to shoulder lanes would be required if this concept were to be implemented permanently?

For the demonstration project, only minor improvements will be made to the shoulder. Sections will be re-striped to provide a wider shoulder. Significant signage will also be positioned along the corridor.

2

Additional Implementation/Monitoring Activities

• Driver Training – MTS and SANDAG have developed an extensive driver training program. All Route 960 drivers will receive four hours of classroom training, two hours on-the-road training, and refresher training throughout the demonstration period. New drivers will be trained as they are hired.

• Marketing – A marketing plan has been developed which includes extensive radio spots, print media, a Web page, “Take-One” notices on the buses, and outreach to agencies in the demonstration area.

• Public Agency Outreach – Fire, police, and other essential support agencies in the corridor are scheduled to be briefed on the demonstration project in October. In addition, an outreach letter will be sent to other public and private transportation operators in the corridor. The purpose of this letter will be to let them know of the parameters of the demonstration project and ensure that no copycat use of the transit-only lanes occurs.

• Project Team Meetings – Beginning in October, the project team, which includes SANDAG, Caltrans, CHP, and MTS staff, will hold bi-weekly meetings to coordinate the implementation of the project. After implementation, this group will meet monthly or as often as needed.

• Monitoring Reports – Every quarter SANDAG staff will bring a report to the Transportation Committee and MTS Board outlining the status of the freeway shoulder lane project. This report will include the following data:

- Safety (accidents, obstructions, CHP comments); - Main lane operations (loop data assessing how the main lanes are operating); - Bus Operations and Ridership (On-time performance data and ridership data); and - Survey results (bus driver and passenger perception surveys).

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachment: 1. Map of Demonstration Project Area

Key Staff Contact: Jennifer Williamson, (619) 699-1959, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

Nobel Dr UTC Proposed Freeway Transit Lanes Demo

I-805 Future SR 52/I-805 Coaster Station

SR 52 Kearny Villa Rd

Kearny Clmt/Complex Mesa Balboa Ave

SR 52/I-805 Shoulder Lane I-15 Project

Route 960 Alignment

Existing Fashion Valley Transit Center

Proposed Transit Center El Cajon Blvd & University Ave Transit Plazas

4 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8

Action Requested: INFORMATION

UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARINGS FOR TRANSIT DEPENDENT AND DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS File Number 3001104

Introduction

SANDAG’s Subcommittee for Accessible Transportation (SCAT), acting as the region’s Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, will hold five public hearings to receive comments on unmet transit needs in San Diego County. Comments received will assist SANDAG and the region’s transit operators in identifying the unmet transit needs of transit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and persons who are economically disadvantaged.

Discussion

SCAT will conduct the Unmet Transit Needs Hearings to solicit comments on the need for new transit services throughout the region and improvements to existing services. Comments are requested on those transit needs not currently being met and which can reasonably be addressed. The comments received at the hearings will be reported to the Transportation Committee at its December 9, 2005, meeting.

The comments will be used by SANDAG in preparation of transportation plans and programs, including the Regional Short-Range Transit Plan (RSRTP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). They also will be transmitted to the transit and operators as they relate to operating issues and needs (such as driver behavior, on-time adherence, etc.). Additionally, the comments will be shared with other organizations that provide transportation services to transit dependent populations, including the Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) and the County Aging and Independence Services.

Location of Hearings

The public hearings will be held at the following locations:

• Tuesday, October 18, beginning at 1 p.m. in the El Cajon Library, El Cajon;

• Thursday, October 20, beginning at 10 a.m., in the Sequoia Room, North County Lifeline, 200 Michigan Avenue, Vista;

• Monday, October 24, 10 a.m. to 12 noon at Caltrans District Auditorium, 2829 Juan Street, San Diego;

• Thursday, October 27, beginning at 3 p.m., in the meeting room of Community Options, 542 Broadway, Suite I, Chula Vista; and

• Thursday, December 1, beginning at 10:00am, at Caltrans District Auditorium, 2829 Juan Street, San Diego.

In addition to commenting in person at any of the public hearings, the public will be able to provide input on a special Web page which is provided on the SANDAG Web site at www.sandag.org/transitneeds, by e-mail, or regular mail. A press release will be sent to regional and community newspapers announcing the workshops and the Web site. The meeting schedule for the hearings will also be posted on the SANDAG Web site.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Key Staff Contact: James Floyd, (619) 699-1921, [email protected]

2 This Item Relates to Agenda Item #9 Transportation Committee October 21, 2005

October 5, 2005 8000100

TO: Transportation Committee

FROM: Joe Kellejian, Chair

SUBJECT: Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Attendance

Questions were recently raised concerning attendance by alternates at our Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings. The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of our Board policy concerning Committee meeting attendance.

Each PAC includes regular members and alternates from each of the six geographical subregions (North County Coastal, North County Inland, East County, South County, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego). With the exception of the Executive Committee, the other PACs (Transportation, Regional Planning, Borders, and Public Safety) also include other voting members and alternates as well as non-voting advisory members and alternates.

Our adopted SANDAG policy encourages members and alternates to attend all Committee meetings. Attendance by Committee alternates, although not required, is encouraged. Our policy also states that if a member agency is unrepresented at three consecutive Committee meetings, a letter will be sent to the respective City Council/County Board of Supervisors, all other members and alternates of the Committee, and the SANDAG Board of Directors members and alternates concerning the absences.

I am happy to report that we have had a consistent attendance record at our Transportation Committee meetings. An attendance history for calendar year 2005 is attached for your information. I look forward to continuing to see all of you at our upcoming meetings.

JK/TB/ais

Attachment

San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 10

Action Requested: APPROVE

PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CHANGE TO MTS RURAL TRANSIT ROUTE FARES AND APPROVAL OF CORRESPONDING CHANGE TO MTS FARE ORDINANCE File Number 3004800

Introduction

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is proposing adjustments to rural bus service and fares. In accordance with SANDAG Policy No. 29, entitled “Regional Fare Policy and Comprehensive Fare Ordinance,” SANDAG is authorized to develop a regional fare policy and set transit fares. Policies Nos. 29 and 25 (Public Participation/Involvement Policy) require SANDAG to hold a public hearing on fare adjustments and approve fare changes recommended by the transit agencies. The fare changes must then be incorporated into a fare ordinance to be legally enforceable. Ultimately, SANDAG will develop and approve a regional transit fare ordinance that will supersede the existing fare ordinances maintained by MTS and North County Transit District (NCTD). Until the new SANDAG ordinance is approved, fare changes will be implemented through amendments to the fare ordinances of the transit agencies.

Recommendation

The SANDAG Transportation Committee is asked:

1. To conduct a Public Hearing on the proposed fare adjustments to MTS Rural Bus services; and

2. Depending on public input, to approve fare adjustments of up to $10 for one-way fares for MTS Rural Bus services.

Discussion

MTS has historically operated six rural bus routes serving El Cajon, Ramona, Jacumba, Alpine, Borrego, and Campo. The current rural bus cash fare ranges from $2 to $3 depending on the route. While the services have generated approximately $122,000 in annual fare revenue from approximately 60,000 passenger boardings, the average subsidy per passenger ranges from $10 to $63.

Table 1 shows the farebox recovery (percent of operating cost covered by passenger fares) and average subsidy per passenger for each of the existing rural bus routes.

Table 1 – Rural Bus Service Farebox Recovery & Subsidy per Passenger Trip

Farebox Subsidy per Route Recovery Passenger Trip 867 (Ramona - El Cajon) 6.9% $27.71 888 (Jacumba – El Cajon) 5.7% $34.22 889 (Alpine - El Cajon) 3.1% $63.67 891 (Borrego - Ramona) 4.6% $43.00 892 (Borrego - Ramona) 4.0% $50.05 894 (Campo - El Cajon) 16.9% $10.18

Proposed Changes

As part of the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), MTS has restructured its rural transit services into four routes, generally serving the same areas. The initial MTS proposal for fare adjustments for these routes was developed after a series of community meetings held in the rural areas during the month of August 2005. The proposed fares, which included a $10 fare for services to Jacumba and Borrego and a $4 fare for service to Campo, were introduced to the public at an MTS Board of Directors (MTS Board) meeting on September 22, 2005. Based on public comment at that meeting, MTS has proposed a zone-based fare modification to the initial recommendation as shown in Table 2. On October 13, 2005, the MTS Board will hold an initial public hearing on the zone-based proposal. The zone boundaries would run north-south at Ramona (Ramona Station), Alpine (Tavern Road and Alpine Boulevard) and the Tecate border crossing (State Route 94 and Barret Smith Road). Tokens would be accepted on the rural services for their face value. The new fares would be implemented in January 2006, if approved.

Table 2 – Fare Structure Proposed at MTS Public Hearing on October 13, 2005

Regular Passenger Fare Senior/Disabled Fare Within Within Within Within 1 Zone 2 Zones 1 Zone 2 Zones Total Fare Total Fare Total Fare Total Fare Cash Fare Only $5 $10 $2.50 $5 Senior/Disabled Pass - - $2.00 $4 Any Other Prepaid Pass $4 $8 - - Any Valid Transfer $4 $8 $2.00 $4 Age 5 years and under Free Free Free Free

An oral report on the actions taken by the MTS Board on October 13, 2005, will be presented at the October 21, 2005, SANDAG Transportation Committee meeting. Upon approval by the SANDAG Transportation Committee, MTS could incorporate the proposed fare adjustments into MTS Ordinance No. 4. The tentative schedule for amending Ordinance No. 4 provides for the first reading on November 10, 2005, and the second reading on December 8, 2005, and the fare adjustment effective date would be 30 days thereafter. Proposed Ordinance No. 4 amendment dates are subject to change.

The proposed fare adjustment, in conjunction with rural service changes approved by the MTS Board on September 22, 2005, would result in annual operating subsidy savings of about $1,027,500. This estimate of savings is based on reduced service hours, increased fares, and reduced

2

ridership. Each revised route would be required to meet a 10 percent cost recovery target within six months. A cost recovery target of 10 percent is the target established for rural routes by the California Transportation Development Act.

Rural Service Change Background

On June 23, 2005, the MTS Board directed its staff to conduct a route-by-route service analysis of the six rural bus services to develop recommendations on possible service reductions.

MTS staff reported backed to the MTS Board on possible options for service reductions on July 14, 2005. At this meeting, the Board asked staff to conduct community meetings in the rural areas to seek feedback on the potential options for service changes. Following the community meetings, MTS staff made some further revisions to the service options, and presented a recommended service plan to the MTS Board. MTS staff believes the proposed service plan is responsive to many of comments received during the outreach program.

On September 22, 2005, the MTS Board approved the recommended option to be considered for implementation through a public hearing set for October 13. The recommended option results in an 82 percent reduction in service in rural service hours of operation and a reduction from six to four routes as described below and illustrated in Attachment 1.

The new service would:

• Combine Routes 867, 891, and 892 into a service that operates only one round trip, two days per week, serving Borrego Springs and El Cajon. On Fridays service would be provided to Julian and Shelter Valley, and on Saturdays service would be provided to Ranchita and Lake Henshaw. Service would be discontinued on Earlham Street in Ramona.

• Operate Route 888 to Jacumba one round trip on Mondays and Fridays.

• Operate Route 894 to Campo three round trips Monday through Friday, and the route would no longer serve Grossmont Center and Hospital. Service to Morena Village would be reduced to one trip per day.

• Discontinue Route 889.

SANDAG staff conducted an administrative review of the proposed service changes as required by SANDAG Policy No. 18 (Regional Transit Service Planning and Implementation). Staff concluded that the proposed service changes are not major changes as defined by Policy No. 18. Furthermore, the changes are consistent with regional policy to provide financially sustainable services that meet established performance standards.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Key Staff Contact: Dan Levy, (619) 699-6942; [email protected]

Attachment: 1. MTS Rural Bus Service Map

3

Attachment 1

MTS Rural Bus Service Adjustments

Option 4 ? Recommendation 79 Rt. 892 R/Trip Days Current 4 Thur $ 1,027 K Annual Savings

Proposed 1 Fri Ranchita Borrego Springs 892 Springs

Rt. 867 R/Trip Days 78 Current 6 M-F 3 Sat Rt. 891 R/Trip Days 891 Proposed 1 Fri Current 4 Sat Julian 1 Sat Shelter Proposed 1 Sat Ramona ValleyVal ley

867 79

Rt. 888 R/Trip Days 889 Current 2 M-F El Cajon 889 Current 2 M-F 888 2 Sat Rt. 889 R/Trip Days Proposed 1 M & F Current 5 M-F 0 Sat Rt. 894 R/Trip Days Proposed 0 - 8 Current 4 M-F 2 S-S Proposed 3 M-F 894 0 S-S Jacumba TecateTec at e

4 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 11

Action Requested: APPROVE

2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES File Number 1109100

Introduction

The California Transportation Commission (CTC) recently adopted the 2006 Fund Estimate, which identifies revenue forecasts and programming targets for various transportation programs, including the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The 2006 STIP covers the five- year period from Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07 to 2010/11. Other than a modest increase of approximately $6.3 million in Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds, which are administered as a separate component of the STIP, the San Diego region will not receive new programming capacity from the STIP for major highway or transit projects in the 2006 cycle. This report proposes the guidelines that staff will use to develop the programming recommendations for the five-year period ending FY 2010/11.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is requested to approve the following 2006 STIP development criteria which are consistent with previously approved programming priorities established in the 2004 STIP:

1. Complete projects currently programmed in the STIP.

2. Place particular emphasis on programming and completing TransNet Early Action Projects.

3. Program projects at the earliest possible time they can be constructed or implemented.

4. Maintain existing STIP funding levels as a minimum on existing programmed projects, unless programmed through other funding sources.

5. Reflect the efforts by the region and Caltrans to complete some of these projects outside the STIP through other funding sources that have proven more reliable for these types of projects.

The Transportation Committee is also requested to discuss and provide direction on the potential programming options presented in the report (see sections below entitled Potential 2006 STIP Options and Transportation Enhancement Program).

Discussion

The STIP is a five-year transportation funding program that is typically used for capacity-increasing projects such as new or widened freeways, freeway improvements including operational, Traffic

Systems Management and others, as well as transit projects and vehicle procurements. The STIP is renewed every two years, with two new years of programming capacity added in the process. The last time the STIP was adopted was in 2004, and the five-year cycle ends FY 2008/09. There are approximately three and a half years remaining in the 2004 STIP. It is now time for the 2006 STIP to be developed by the regions. The development of the 2006 STIP is based on regional priorities in combination with funding availability as determined by the CTC through its Fund Estimate.

The 2006 Fund Estimate identifies all revenues that are forecast to flow to various transportation accounts in the next five years. These revenue estimates reflect current law, such as Proposition 42, and are supposed to flow reliably according to statute from year to year. However, a significant portion of them has instead become subject to the annual state budget negotiation process, making them less reliable. Nonetheless, the CTC is required to determine the potential funding that could become available for the five-year period ending in FY 2010/11 if no budgetary diversions occur away from transportation.

According to the 2006 Fund Estimate recently adopted by the CTC, there is $5.6 billion in programming capacity statewide through the STIP. Of this amount, approximately $3.8 billion represents prior commitments from the 2004 STIP, including payback of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds and AB 3090 reimbursements, as well as previously programmed projects. New statewide STIP programming capacity is only approximately $1.8 billion. This new programming capacity has been distributed to the counties based on the status of their share balance. Counties that have already programmed their balances through advances in previous STIP cycles do not get additional programming capacity.

What this means to San Diego is that our 2006 STIP programming capacity is limited to the amount already programmed on existing regional projects plus the funds from FY 2005/06 projects whose allocation requests have been placed on hold by the CTC. This totals nearly $151 million and reflects currently programmed projects between FY 2006/07 and 2008/09, plus $4 million from FY 2005/06 projects currently on hold, for a grand total available of $155 million. This figure does not include any TE funds as these are administered separately nor does it include any of the GARVEE bond payback or AB 3090 reimbursements, which have been taken off the top and are unavailable for reprogramming. The only way to increase funding for projects already programmed in the STIP is through redirections from other STIP programmed projects.

Further complicating the programming picture is the issue of the Public Transportation Account (PTA). PTA-eligible projects include transit facilities, certain stations, and vehicle acquisitions. They do not include High-Occupancy-Vehicle lanes or Managed Lanes if these are shared with passenger vehicles. With each cycle, the STIP is funded with a combination of PTA and State Highway Account (SHA) funds. For the 2006 cycle, a significant amount of the STIP programming capacity statewide is made up by the PTA. This is because a significant amount of the SHA is being absorbed by Caltrans operations and rehabilitation programs, leaving the PTA as one of the principal funding sources to the STIP. Although the CTC has not given the regions a programming target of PTA funds, the CTC is asking regions to consider adding PTA-eligible projects or replacing existing projects with PTA-eligible projects. Upon receiving the STIP submittals from all the regions, the CTC will need to balance PTA and SHA funding availability with the funding requests, including those that qualify for PTA funds.

2

Proposed 2006 STIP Criteria

In the summer of 2001, the Transportation Committee evaluated and prioritized a series of projects that culminated in November 2001 with the approval by the Board of Directors of the 2002 STIP. The projects that are included in the remaining 2004 STIP were prioritized and programmed as part of that 2002 STIP exercise.

In 2002 and 2003, the Board of Directors had another opportunity to reprioritize projects through the development of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Board of Directors approved criteria for the selection of transportation projects for the 2030 RTP in March 2002. The draft list of projects, which included the proposed phasing of completion, was reviewed in October 2002, and approved with minor revisions in January 2003. The 2030 RTP, including the prioritized list and phasing of projects, was adopted by the Board of Directors in March 2003. It should be noted that the Board of Directors reaffirmed the priorities originally established in the 2002 STIP by including them in the 2030 RTP. The 2002 STIP prioritization was validated upon adoption of the 2004 STIP by the Board of Directors in March 2004.

The Board of Directors further reaffirmed the major corridor priority projects included in the 2004 STIP by including them in the plan of projects for the TransNet Extension that was approved by the voters in November 2004. Two of the proposed remaining 2006 STIP projects, SR 52 and Mid-Coast, were later identified as part of Tier I of the TransNet Early Action Program (EAP), approved by the Board in January 2005. It should be noted that the remaining Tier I EAP project, SR 76, is fully programmed through the end of its current environmental phase, with additional funds already programmed for design and right-of-way. Additional funding, including potential STIP funds, will be proposed to be programmed in future programming cycles as project completion milestones are achieved.

The programming priorities included in the draft 2006 STIP funding options are consistent with the priorities established in both the 2004 STIP and the 2030 RTP. Given the programming limitations of the 2004 STIP, the intent of the options presented in this report is to carry to completion at the earliest possible time these previously established programming priorities.

Remaining 2004 STIP

The 2004 STIP remaining program is distributed as shown in Table 1 below. It should be noted that the CTC takes regional STIP funds off the top for previous commitments, including the payback for GARVEE bonds that were approved for the I-15 Managed Lanes and the AB 3090 reimbursement payments that the CTC is scheduled to allocate in Fiscal Years 2006/07 and 2007/08. These payback and reimbursement funds, totaling approximately $55.4 million during the remaining years of the 2004 STIP, are not available for reprogramming to any other project. They reduce, however, the region’s programming capacity for other projects.

3

Table 1. 2004 STIP Remaining Projects ($000’s) FY FY FY Project 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total Previous Commitments – off the top I-15 Managed Lanes GARVEE Payback 16,376 16,376 16,376 49,128 AB 3090 Reimbursements: •Smart Card Project 5,850 5,850 •FY 2003/04 Planning & Program 237 142 379 Monitoring Off the Top Sub-total (not available for reprogramming) 22,463 16,518 16,376 55,357

FY FY FY Project 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total Projects subject to reprogramming 1a. SR 52 Extension to SR 67: Right-of- 49,620 49,620 Way 1b. SR 52 Extension to SR 67: Construction 68,920 68,920 2. Mid-Coast Extension to University City Right-of-Way Acquisition 5,254 5,254 3. I-805 Incident Detectors 6,050 6,050 4. Planning and Program Monitoring 334 334 785 1,453 5. I-805 Ramp Meters 7,163 7,163 6. SR 54/SR 125 HOV Lanes: Design 6,500 6,500 7. Rideshare Program 1,824 1,879 1,935 5,638 8. Federal Matching Funds 187 187 Total (subject to reprogramming) 51,965 7,467 91,353 150,785 Projects in italics are included in the TransNet Early Action Program.

The status of the current fiscal year’s STIP program is shown in Table 2 below. To date, the region has received approximately $16.8 million in STIP allocations in FY 2005/06. There is approximately $4.0 million in allocation requests that are not anticipated to be approved this fiscal year. This funding would roll over to the 2006 STIP. Finally, there are $12.5 million programmed for construction of SR 905 for which Caltrans has not requested an allocation. Caltrans anticipates requesting an allocation for SR 905 in Spring 2006.

Table 2. Status on 2004 STIP Fiscal Year 2005/06 Allocations ($000’s) Allocation not Program Allocated Anticipated: Roll- Project Amount Amount Over to 2006 STIP Status Mid-Coast Environmental 4,000 4,000 Allocated Planning and Program Monitoring 334 334 Allocated SR 905 Right-of-Way 12,500 12,500 Allocated Allocation not yet SR 905 Construction 12,749 requested by Caltrans Rideshare Program 3,530 3,530 Request on Pending List Federal Matching Funds 440 440 Request on Pending List Total 33,553 16,834 3,970 Projects in italics are included in the TransNet Early Action Program. 4

Potential Project Deletions from 2004 STIP

Following is a brief discussion on potential project deletions from the 2004 STIP as it transitions into the 2006 STIP. The subject projects are numbered 5 through 8 in Table 1 above. Adding the potential project deletions, which total approximately $19.5 million and the FY 2005/06 pending allocations, which total approximately $4.0 million, yields approximately $23.5 million that could be reprogrammed to an existing STIP project(s) over and above its current programming level, or to another project.

I-805 Ramp Meters: This project has already been partially constructed, as the City of Chula Vista has begun construction of ramp meters at various locations on I-805 with a combination of other funding sources. Given the lack of funds in the near term in the STIP and the project’s readiness, Caltrans proposes to fund the remainder of the original scope of this project with its State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds in FY 2006/07. Therefore, it is prudent to delete this project from the STIP and redirect the nearly $7.2 million to a TransNet EAP or other project.

SR 54/SR 125 HOV Lanes: Caltrans recently finished a study of the proposed SR 54/SR 125 HOV lanes and concluded that at this time, there is not sufficient demand due to the lack of connecting HOV lane facilities. The study recommended that these HOV facilities be deferred until similar facilities along connecting freeways, including I-805 and SR 125 South, are completed. The $6.5 million in design funds could be redirected to a TransNet EAP or other project.

Regional Rideshare Program: While this program continues to expand in the San Diego region, the CTC has consistently placed Rideshare programs across the state as one of its lowest priorities. On repeated occasions, the CTC has deferred or placed on a pending list the funding allocation requests for this program. Earlier this calendar year, SANDAG programmed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) as a contingency in case the CTC did not allocate STIP funds for the program. The CTC has placed the FY 2005/06 allocation request on hold yet again. It is therefore prudent to remove the Regional Rideshare program from the STIP and fund it with CMAQ or other funding sources. The $5.6 million in STIP funds programmed between FY 2006/07 and FY 2008/09 plus $3.5 million in FY 2005/06 roll-over funds could be redirected to a TransNet EAP or other project.

Federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)/CMAQ Matching Funds: As with the Rideshare program, the CTC has placed this matching funds program at or near the bottom of its allocation priorities. It is therefore prudent that other matching funds, including TransNet, be used instead of the STIP matching funds and that the currently programmed funds of $187,000 plus $440,000 in roll-over FY 2005/06 funds be re-directed to a TransNet EAP or other project.

Potential 2006 STIP Options

Approximately $154.8 million in currently programmed STIP funds can be reprogrammed as part of the 2006 STIP. This amount is made up of approximately $150.8 million in projects programmed between FY 2006/07 and 2008/9 plus approximately $4.0 million in roll-over funds from FY 2005/06 project allocation requests that the CTC has placed on a pending list.

Table 3 below shows the 2006 STIP Program Targets as developed by the CTC and how they compare with the existing distribution of programmed funds under the 2004 STIP. As can be seen in the table, a significant amount currently programmed in FY 2006/07 through 2008/09 would need to be pushed out to the outer years of the 2006 STIP (FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11).

5

Table 3. 2006 STIP Programming Capacity for San Diego ($000’s) FY FY FY FY FY Item 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total a. 2006 STIP Funding Available 22,463 16,518 56,489 92,020 51,405 238,894 b. Off the top previous commitments 22,463 16,518 16,376 16,376 16,376 88,109 c. 2006 STIP Programming Targets (a – b) 0 0 40,113 75,644 35,029 150,785 d. FY 2005/06 Roll-Over Funds 3,970 0 0 0 0 3,970 e. Adjusted 2006 STIP Capacity (c + d) 3,970 0 40,113 75,664 35,029 154,755 f. 2004 STIP Remaining Funds 51,965 7,467 91,353 150,785 g. Annual difference between 2004 STIP and 2006 STIP distribution (47,995) (7,467) (51,240) 75,664 35,029 3,970 (e – f) h. Cumulative funds that need to be (47,995) (55,462) (106,702 (31,038) 3,970 pushed out )

In order to maintain the existing funding level on projects listed 1 through 4 in Table 1, namely, those that would transition from the 2004 STIP to the 2006 STIP, $131.3 million of the $154.8 million are required. The remaining $23.5 million generated from implementation of the potential project deletions and roll-over funds could be programmed on one or more of the following:

1. Existing TransNet Early Action Program projects from the 2004 STIP: a. SR 52 Extension from SR 125 to SR 67 b. Mid-Coast Trolley Extension

2. Other remaining 2004 STIP projects c. Planning and Program Monitoring d. SR 905

3. Other unidentified transit or highway project or projects not currently included in the 2004 STIP

Below is a discussion on the existing 2004 STIP programmed projects with considerations for the 2006 STIP, including the programming of the $23.5 million from potential project deletions discussed earlier as well as the potential advancement of funds in accordance with the proposed 2006 STIP development criteria.

An additional consideration in deciding how to program these funds is the potential to advance the programming ahead of what the CTC indicated in its programming targets. The CTC has indicated that they realize there are counties wherein the formulas to distribute available funds yield zero programming targets in the initial two years of the cycle but have projects that are or will be “ready to go”. San Diego is one of these counties. The CTC has expressed a willingness to consider

6

advancing funds for these “ready to go” projects, but has put project sponsors on notice that these projects would need to meet CTC criteria for economic development; a clear link between housing, transportation, and land-use; and a significant role for goods movement. Of the projects listed above, SR 52 and SR 905 are the projects with the highest likelihood for consideration by the CTC to advance the funds ahead of programming target years.

SR 52 Extension from SR 125 to SR 67: STIP funding for right-of-way acquisition was delayed one year from FY 2005/06 to FY 2006/07 by the CTC upon adoption of the 2004 STIP. To compensate for this delaying action by the CTC, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved advancing TransNet funds to FY 2005/06 as part of the TransNet Early Action Program. These TransNet funds have already been programmed in the RTIP. A significant portion of the STIP funds currently programmed for right-of-way could therefore be moved over to construction. As part of the 2006 STIP, approximately $12.9 million in STIP funds could remain programmed for right-of-way acquisition; however, approximately $105.6 million could now be programmed for construction, up from $68.9 million. These construction funds could be split between FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08 to advance some of the more complex work forward to construction in FY 2006/07 and still allow completion of the overall corridor by 2009.

Mid-Coast Trolley Extension to University City: The 2004 STIP contains approximately $5.3 million for right-of-way acquisition in FY 2007/08. This programming action was approved when the project terminated at Balboa Avenue. Since then, the project’s terminus has been extended to University City. Additional design and right-of-way work will need to be accomplished for this expanded scope. Additional funding for these activities could be programmed in FY 2009/10. The fact that the Mid-Coast project is PTA-eligible would also enhance the likelihood of allocation given the recent higher proportion of PTA funds in the STIP.

I-805 Incident Detectors: This project was programmed in FY 2008/09 as part of the 2004 STIP. No change would be proposed for this project.

Planning and Program Monitoring (PPM): The region now qualifies for two additional years of PPM funds. The CTC sets the maximum amount of PPM funds that can be programmed on an annual basis. Based on the program targets, the amount of PPM programmed could be increased from the current $1.45 million to $2.48 million, an increase of approximately $1.03 million.

SR 905: This project is programmed for FY 2005/06. At this time, funding is available only to construct the eastern half of the freeway. Additional funding is required to construct the western half of the freeway. Programming a portion of the $23.5 million on this project could also potentially leverage additional Interregional STIP funds as this is a major interregional project. This project, however, is not part of the TransNet Early Action Program. It should be noted that as part of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), a Border Infrastructure Funds (BIF) program could provide additional resources for SR 905. Programming additional regional funds to this project could reduce the pressure to identify these BIF dollars for the SR 905 project.

Transportation Enhancement Program

Transportation Enhancement funds are federal funds administered as a separate component through the STIP by the CTC. With two additional years added to the program, an additional $6.3 million have been made available to the region. The CTC also changed the distribution of the funding across fiscal years, as illustrated in Table 4 below.

7

Table 4. Transportation Enhancement Program ($000’s) Cycle FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 Total a. 2006 STIP 6,026 4,268 4,500 4,295 3,875 22,964 b. 2004 STIP 8,037 4,631 3,949 16,617 Difference (a - b) (2,011) (363) 551 4,295 3,875 6,347

Allocation of the TE funds identified in the 2004 STIP (the $16.6 million plus $2.5 million in previous year’s funds) was conducted through a prioritization process for the Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program (PSGIP), approved by the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees on September 2, 2005. An option to program the $6.3 million in TE funds is to fund additional PSGIP projects that were below the line in the last prioritization exercise. Another option would be to program these funds on other TE-eligible projects.

Next Steps

This report is for approval of the 2006 STIP development guidelines only. Pending approval of the 2006 STIP development guidelines, a funding proposal will be brought to the Transportation Committee for approval of the recommendation to the Board of Directors as early as next month. The programming recommendation will then be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors for final approval in either November or December. SANDAG needs to submit the 2006 STIP to the CTC prior to January 30, 2006. The CTC is scheduled to adopt the statewide STIP at its April 27, 2006, meeting.

RENEE WASMUND Director of Finance

Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, 619-699-1908; [email protected]

8 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 12

Action Requested: APPROVE

MAGLEV STUDY SCOPE OF WORK File Number 3005900

Introduction

The recently approved federal multi-year transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU) included an $800,000 earmark, sponsored by Congressman Bob Filner, to study the feasibility of a Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) link between the San Diego region and a potential regional airport in Imperial Valley. On September 2, 2005, the Transportation Committee authorized staff to proceed with all administrative actions required to utilize the federal funding and directed staff to report back with information on a north/south connection as well.

In response, staff has developed a two-phased scope of work to study the feasibility of Maglev and to prepare a brief comparative analysis of conventional high-speed rail, dedicated highway lanes, and Maglev. As authorized by the Transportation Committee on September 2, Phase I will study the feasibility of east/west Maglev alignments along the Interstate 8 corridor linking the San Diego region to the potential regional airport site in Imperial Valley (East/West Alignment – see Attachment 1). A total of $400,000 in funding ($320,000 earmark and $80,000 local match) is being secured, and staff is proceeding with the Phase I study, as described below.

Phase 2 will study the feasibility of north/south Maglev alignments in San Diego and Imperial Counties linking to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) potential Maglev network to the north (North/South Alignment – see Attachment 2). The anticipated $600,000 in funding for Phase 2 is contingent upon amending the current federal legislation allowing use of the remaining earmark funds ($480,000) for the North/South Alignment and securing the required local match ($120,000). Both the East/West and North/South Alignments are potentially critical segments of a larger Maglev network connecting San Diego County, Imperial County, and the Maglev network to the north under study by SCAG.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked:

1. To authorize staff to proceed with the attached scope of work for Phase 1 (East/West Alignment) of the Maglev study, in an amount not to exceed $400,000;

2. To authorize staff to work with Congressman Bob Filner to amend the current federal legislation to allow use of remaining $480,000 federal Maglev study funds to conduct a Phase 2 (North/South Alignment) Maglev study in San Diego and Imperial Counties linking to the SCAG potential Maglev network to the north; and

Contingent upon amending the current federal legislation:

3. To recommend that the Executive Committee approve the use of up to $120,000 from SANDAG’s contingency reserve to match the earmark funds for the Phase 2 (North/South Alignment) study;

4. To recommend that the SANDAG Board of Directors amend the FY 2006 Overall Work Program (OWP) and Program Budget to add a work element of up to $600,000 for the Phase 2 (North/South Alignment) study and approve the processing of any necessary amendments to SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); and

5. To authorize staff to proceed with the attached scope of work for Phase 2 (North/South Alignment) of the Maglev study, in an amount not to exceed $600,000.

Discussion

The recently signed multi-year transportation bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), included a funding earmark in the amount of $800,000 for the purpose of studying a Maglev link between the San Diego region and a potential airport in Imperial County. When matched with the required local funds, a total of $1 million would be available over four years for the study. In FY 2006, a total of $400,000 is potentially available ($320,000 federal funds plus $80,000 local match).

A work program has been prepared to address both Phase 1 (East/West Alignment) and Phase 2 (North/South Alignment) of the Maglev study. Consistent with the federal legislation, the first priority in FY 2006 will be to study the proposed Maglev line from San Diego to the proposed desert airport site in Imperial County. The Phase 1 study area is shown in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 shows the potential SCAG Maglev network to the north of the San Diego County and Imperial County study area. The highlights of the proposed scope, provided in Attachment 3, are summarized below. Although the focus of the study will be on Maglev technology, a brief comparative analysis of potential high-speed rail and highway improvements will also be developed. The potential to utilize the Maglev corridors under study for freight as well as passenger service will also be investigated.

MAGLEV Study Scope Highlights

• Develop project definition statement • Define study area • Identify current Maglev technologies • Identify potential alignments • Identify station locations and additional infrastructure • Define conceptual Maglev operations • Identify major environmental issues • Estimate potential ridership • Develop conceptual cost estimates • Prepare brief comparative analysis of high-speed rail, highway lanes • Prepare draft report and presentations • Prepare final report

The estimated budget for Phase 1 is $400,000 and would be funded with the $320,000 FY 2006 federal earmark along with $80,000 in local matching funds. SANDAG has worked with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the County of Imperial to secure local match funds for Phase 1 of the study. On September 6, 2005, the IID approved $50,000 to support the study, and on October 11, 2005, the County of Imperial approved $15,000 to support the study. SANDAG anticipates a $15,000 contribution in local funds generated from internal FY 2006 OWP project savings. Total local matching funds would then be available to match the $80,000 required in order to secure the full $320,000 in federal funds available in FY 2006. Congressman Filner has indicated his desire for SANDAG to conduct the East/West Alignment study and to initiate the study as expeditiously as possible. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) is tasked with recommending airport sites, and its staff has indicated that a

2 final analysis would be presented no later than April 2006. Since the results of this study could have an impact on the Authority’s recommendation, it is critical to conclude the feasibility study by February 2006. The tentative study schedule is as follows:

Finalize Work Program/Notice to Proceed October 2005 Complete Initial Study October 2005 – February 2006 Review of Initial Findings February – March 2006 Prepare Final Document April 2006

A technical working group consisting of representatives from the IID, the SDCRAA, and the Imperial County would assist SANDAG in conducting Phase 1 (East/West Alignment) of the study.

Congressman Filner has expressed his willingness to support federal legislation allowing the use of any federal earmark funds remaining from Phase 1 to be utilized for Phase 2 (North/South Alignments) of the study provided that the East/West Alignment study was comprehensive and sufficiently funded. The next opportunity to advance such legislation is November, 2005. The estimated cost of Phase 2 of the study is estimated to total $600,000 with $480,000 being provided by the federal earmark and $120,000 in local matching funds. The Phase 2 study is anticipated to be completed within 12 to 18 months of approval of the necessary funding actions. With Committee approval of the actions above, staff will begin working with Congressman Filner to amend the current earmark language.

Consistent with the federal legislation, Phase 1 (East/West Alignment) of the Maglev study will provide a comparative analysis of the options of dedicated highway lanes, conventional high-speed rail, and Maglev. Existing data for dedicated highway lanes and conventional rail service will be utilized to develop the comparative analysis.

JACK BODA Department Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation

Key Staff Contact: Leslie Blanda, (619) 699-6907, [email protected]

Attachments: 1. Phase 1 Study Area 2. Maglev Southern California Network 3. Maglev Study Scope of Work

3 Attachment 1

Phase 1 (East/West Alignment) Maglev Study

SDIA

Desert Site

4 Attachment 2

14 138 Helendale Ludlow Lake Hughes Lancaster 40 15 247 Adelanto Bagdad Palmdale Apple Valley Los Angeles Victorville 18 138 San Bernardino Santa Clarita Hesperia 247 Big Bear Lake La Canada Flintridge Yucca Glendale Pasadena San Bernardino Valley Twentynine Palms Agoura Hills 30 62

Fontana 62 Los Angeles Riverside Desert Hot Springs 177 Anaheim Torrance Corona Moreno Valley R i v e r s i d e O r a n g e Cathedral City Palos Verdes Estates Hemet Santa Ana Palm Springs Long Beach Irvine Palm Desert Indio 10 Lake Elsinore 74 Huntington Beach Costa Mesa 1 371 Laguna Niguel Oasis Avalon 5 79 111 I m p e r i a l Borrego Springs LEGEND Oceanside Vista S a n D i e g o 86 SCAG - PLANNED ALIGNMENTS 78 San Marcos Calipatria Palmdale - LAX - John Wayne - San Bernardino Carlsbad LAX - Ontario - San Bernardino - March Escondido Westmorland Brawley Palmdale - Victorville - San Bernardino - March - Encinitas 15 Poway 79 78 San Diego/Orange County Line SCAG - FUTURE ALIGNMENTS Santee Imperial El Cajon Holtville San Bernardino - Coachella Valley El Centro SANDAG - ALIGNMENTS UNDER STUDY San Diego Lemon Grove San Diego - Imperial Valley 8 Calexico Coronado 98 San Diego - John Wayne Desert Site San Diego - March Chula Vista Imperial Valley - Coachella Valley Imperial Beach

5 Attachment 3

DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK – MAGLEV STUDY Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Prepared by: HNTB Corporation (HNTB) Date: October 7, 2005

This scope of work outlines HNTB’s approach to conducting conceptual engineering and design analysis for a magnetic levitation system (Maglev) in San Diego and Imperial Counties. In Phase I, the study will address East-West alignments for Maglev linking San Diego to the potential airport site in the Imperial Valley known as the Desert Site. Phase II will study North- South Maglev alignments within San Diego County and Imperial County linking to the air-rail Maglev network being studied by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region to the North.

Phase I Study: East-West Alignment San Diego to Imperial Valley

1.0 PROJECT DEFINITION

1.1 Project Definition Statement A project definition statement will be developed using information from past studies, related studies, federal legislation, and input from key stakeholders including, but not limited to, SANDAG, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA), Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Imperial County and Caltrans. The project definition statement will be developed to define the objectives of the study and to guide the development, refinement and presentation of alternatives.

1.2 Study Area The study boundaries encompass an area generally paralleling the Interstate 8 Freeway Corridor from San Diego downtown/Lindberg Field to a potential airport site in the Imperial Valley known as the Desert Site. A preliminary map will be developed which identifies major features of the transportation network including: , highway system, railroad and utility corridor rights-of-ways. Once the boundaries of the Phase I study area are set, more detailed base maps will be developed as outlined below.

1.3 Base Map Generation Geographic Information System (GIS) data within the project limits will be compiled into a database from which base maps for plan and profile sheets will be generated. The database will include the following elements: • Digital color aerial orthographic imagery • 30 meter grid DEM produced by the USGS • Habitat, vegetation, and biological coverage from SANGIS or SANDAG • Floodplain coverage from SANGIS or SANDAG • Jurisdictional Boundaries, i.e.: cities, county, BLM, forests, parks, Indian reservations, etc. • Land parcel coverage and ownership data from SANGIS or SANDAG

6

1.4 Data Collection This subtask involves the collection, assembly, and analysis of relevant existing information that is beneficial in conducting this study. This information will include, but not be limited to, major utility maps, relevant planning studies and environmental documents.

2.0 MAGLEV TECHNOLOGY

Using information from related technical studies (For example: SCAG Maglev Studies, Florida High Speed Rail Authority Reports, SDCRAA High Speed Transit System Briefing Paper) and a survey of existing and planned maglev systems around the world, technology and modal characteristics of Maglev systems will be defined. Additionally, data on Maglev technology will be obtained from published sources, operators, and equipment suppliers. Information to be summarized in the report will include: • Performance o Maximum Design Speed o Maximum Commercial Speed o Dynamic Envelope o Maximum Grade and Curvature (Tilt and Non-Tilt) • Vehicle Dimensions and Weight • Maximum Axle Load • Passenger Capacity • Cargo Capability and Capacity • Facility Requirements • Fixed Guideway Requirements • Right of Way Requirements • Train Control & System Requirements o Signaling o Communications • Safety Regulations • Security Requirements • Design Criteria/Standards (U.S. and International) • Cost (Capital, Operating and Maintenance)

3.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION

3.1 Route Alignment The primary objectives of this task are to develop alignment alternatives and prepare conceptual plan, profile and typical cross section drawings. The development of alignments will focus on three corridors or some combination thereof including: • I-8 Freeway Corridor • SDG&E Utility Corridor • San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railroad Corridor

7

Alternatives will be refined through the evaluation of variables such as grade, curvature, and fixed-guideway requirements to develop a set of screened alternatives that represent a range of performance and cost parameters. Conceptual layout plans with appropriate scale for this study will then be developed. Conceptual profiles will illustrate the variations in grade and identify surface, subsurface (trench or tunnel) and elevated fixed guideway alignments. Conceptual typical sections will be developed to illustrate the field conditions and corridor compatibility of the alignments. Each alternative route alignment will be studied for the following engineering criteria: • Design Standards (design speed, vertical grade, horizontal alignment, vertical and horizontal clearances) • Right-of-Way Requirements • Major Utility Impacts

3.2 Station Locations Station location alternatives in Phase I on the East-West alignments will be developed for the origin station (Downtown San Diego or Lindberg Field), an intermediate station (South of MCAS Miramar near the County’s population centroid), and a destination station at the potential Desert Site airport in Imperial Valley being studied by SDCRAA.

3.3 Additional Infrastructure Other infrastructure requirements will be defined including maintenance facilities, train control and traction power systems.

3.4 Conceptual Maglev Operations Maglev technology specific train performance for both passenger and freight operations will be determined over the defined routes using a simulation program or spread sheet calculator. Operating plans, including train schedules, will be developed for each screened fixed guideway alternative to establish a basis for ridership, revenue, fleet requirements and O&M cost estimates.

4.0 COST ESTIMATES

4.1 Capital Costs Order of magnitude capital cost estimates will be prepared for screened alternatives. The capital cost estimate will provide order of magnitude costs for major items of work including civil work, fixed guideway, structures, station locations, right-of-way, train control and traction power systems, maintenance facilities and vehicles. Unit costs will be based on information available for Maglev technology.

4.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs O&M cost estimates will be prepared on the basis of the conceptual Maglev operations developed in task 3.4 above, using current operating data where available and estimates as reported in other recent studies.

8

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

A very preliminary assessment of potential environmental factors will be undertaken based on available GIS mapping data and existing documentation (e.g. existing reports and aerial photographs). Potential environmental constraints will be identified and evaluated. As archeological and biological resources are expected to be the most important environmental factors relative to implementing the proposed Maglev system, the evaluation will be limited to these two areas. The results will be summarized in a matrix which will facilitate the comparison of environmental constraints associated with the various alternative alignments. The narrative will also contain discussion of the potential mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts to archaeology and biology resources including a discussion of relative costs.

6.0 RIDERSHIP STUDIES AND ANALYSIS

6.1 Maglev Service Characteristics Maglev service characteristics will be developed for the screened alternative alignments by: • Identifying station locations, • Estimating station-to-station run times based on proposed alignments, • Specifying service frequencies during peak and off-peak hours, • Specifying station-to-station fares, • Specifying boarding restrictions (if any), such as non-airport trips.

6.2 Airport Passenger Demand Airport person trip demand will be provided by: • Working with SDCRAA to obtain air passenger forecasts for the potential Desert Site Airport in Imperial Valley and Lindberg Field (if in operation), • Converting air passenger demand into average weekday ground access and employee person trips.

6.3 Transportation Model SANDAG will run the transportation models to produce preliminary Maglev ridership forecasts by: • Coding transit networks to represent the Maglev service characteristics provided in Task 1, • Modifying transit access procedures to represent long distance Maglev auto access connections, • Modifying 2030 trip generation by TAZ to include the airport person trip forecasts from Task 2, • Running the trip distribution model with the revised person trip forecasts, • Running the standard mode choice model based on Maglev transit networks and treating Maglev as conventional urban rail, • Running the transit assignment model to produce Maglev ridership and station boardings.

9

6.4 Ridership Forecasts Preliminary ridership forecasts will be evaluated against high-level rail ridership at other airports by: • Identifying airports inside and outside the U.S. with existing or planned high-level rail service, • Obtaining actual or forecasted airport rail station boardings and the non-transferring air passenger demand at those airports, • Translating rail ridership experience elsewhere into low and high-end expected Maglev ridership at the potential Desert Site Airport in Imperial Valley, • Recommending changes to SANDAG’s preliminary ridership forecasts based on experience elsewhere.

6.5 Calibrate Transportation Model SANDAG will run the transportation models with revised ridership forecasts, by: • Modifying the mode choice model to match low and high-end ridership targets, • Running transit and highway assignment models to produce performance measures and other model outputs such as maps of forecasted highway and transit volumes.

7.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND ADVOCACY

Suggestions will be developed on strategies and approaches to pursue with local, state and federal decision makers that would support future policies and funding to support integrated air- rail transportation networks. This will include input/recommendations for advocacy of institutional policy reforms and identification of funding strategies for future work including partnerships with other stakeholders.

8.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

A brief comparative analysis will be developed to summarize information on the characteristics of highway, high speed rail and Maglev modes of travel. Information on highway characteristics will be compiled to describe the existing and future highway network in the region and the different types of transportation that use the highway network. Information on high speed rail and Maglev system characteristics will be compiled using available information from related technical studies to summarize technology and modal characteristics. Data/statistics relevant for comparison of all three mode alternatives will be incorporated into comparison tables to include: • Travel distances/times/costs by mode/vehicle type • Traffic congestion and delay • Air Quality and Noise • Capital Cost per Mile • System Operating and Maintenance Costs • Cargo Capability • System Coverage and Unmet Demand

10

9.0 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

SANDAG will form a technical working group for this project. This group will meet monthly. Meeting will be held at sites in both San Diego and El Centro. HNTB will be responsible for the preparation of meeting announcements, meeting agendas and meeting summary notes.

10.0 PRESENTATIONS

PowerPoint presentations and technical handouts will be prepared for use in briefing the technical working group and stakeholders. Up to 12 briefings are anticipated for the Phase I study with half in San Diego and half in Imperial County. It is expected that the basic presentation materials developed will be adaptable for the presentations to multiple groups

11.0 DRAFT REPORT

HNTB will prepare the draft report summarizing the information developed through the course of the study including: • Project Definition Statement • Study Area Base Maps • Maglev Technology Information • Discussion of the development, refinement and presentation of alternative alignments, station locations and additional infrastructure needs. • Conceptual Maglev Operations • Cost estimates for capital requirement as well as operations and maintenance. • Ridership Modeling Results • A comparative analysis of Maglev against highway and conventional high speed rail modes. The draft report will include the conceptual design drawings of the alternatives and other pertinent information included as attachments to the report. An administrative draft will be prepared for review by SANDAG prior to submittal to other agencies.

12.0 FINAL REPORT

HNTB will prepare the final report incorporating SANDAG and other stakeholder comments. A meeting will be held to discuss the comments and ensure the appropriate actions will be taken. This step reduces the opportunity for misunderstanding and provides a clear direction towards the development of the final report. Once concurrence has been reached on all outstanding issues, the final report will be submitted to SANDAG.

13.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

• Prepare Project Work Plan and Schedule • Submit monthly invoices and project status reports

11

• Attend meetings and prepare meeting notices, meeting agendas and meeting summaries. o SANDAG Project Management (two meetings per month) o Project Team (two meetings per month) • Conduct QA/QC Review

Phase II Study: North-South Alignments

14.0 PROJECT DEFINITION

14.1 Project Definition Statement A project definition statement will be developed using information from related studies, federal legislation, and input from key stakeholders including, but not limited to, SANDAG, SDCRAA, IID, Imperial County, SCAG and Caltrans. The project definition statement will be developed to define the objectives of the study and to guide the development, refinement and presentation of alternatives.

14.2 Study Area The study boundaries encompass an area which includes corridors along the I-5 Freeway, the I- 15 Freeway, the proposed new N-S freeway between I-5 and 1-15, and a corridor from the Imperial Valley to the Coachella Valley. A preliminary map will be developed which identifies major features of the transportation network including: airports, highway system, railroad and utility corridor rights-of-ways. Once the boundaries of the Phase II study area are set, more detailed base maps will be developed as outlined below.

14.3 Base Map Generation Geographic Information System (GIS) data within the project limits will be compiled into a database from which base maps for plan and profile sheets will be generated. The database will include the following elements: • Digital color aerial orthographic imagery • 30 meter grid DEM produced by the USGS • Habitat, vegetation, and biological coverage from SANGIS, SANDAG & SCAG • Floodplain coverage from SANGIS, SANDAG & SCAG • Jurisdictional Boundaries, i.e.: cities, county, BLM, forests, parks, Indian reservations, etc. • Land parcel coverage and ownership data from SANGIS, SANDAG & SCAG

14.4 Data Collection This subtask involves the collection, assembly, and analysis of relevant existing information that is beneficial in conducting this study. This information will include, but not be limited to major utility maps, relevant planning studies and environmental documents.

12

15.0 MAGLEV TECHNOLOGY

Information developed and collected during the Phase I Study will be reviewed and updated to be incorporated into this Phase II Study.

16.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION

16.1 Route Alignment The primary objectives of this task are to develop alignment alternatives and prepare conceptual plan, profile and typical cross section drawings. The development of alignments will focus on four corridors or some combination thereof including: • I-5 Freeway Corridor • I-15 Freeway Corridor • New North-South Freeway Corridor • Imperial Valley to Coachella Valley Corridor Alternatives will be refined through the evaluation of variables such as grade, curvature, and fixed-guideway requirements to develop a set of screened alternatives that represent a range of performance and cost parameters. Conceptual layout plans with appropriate scale for this study will then be developed. Conceptual profiles will illustrate the variations in grade and identify surface, subsurface (trench or tunnel) and elevated fixed-guideway alignments. Conceptual typical sections will be developed to illustrate the field conditions and corridor compatibility of the alignments. Each alternative route alignment will be studied for the following engineering criteria: • Design Standards (design speed, vertical grade, horizontal alignment, vertical and horizontal clearances) • Right-of-Way Requirements • Major Utility Impacts

16.2 Station Locations Station location alternatives in Phase II on the N-S alignments will be developed for south origin stations at San Diego (Downtown San Diego or Lindberg Field) and El Centro (Desert Site Alternative for new airport), an intermediate station, and destination stations that are part of the air-rail maglev network being studied by SCAG (John Wayne Airport, LAX, March AFB, Ontario, SBIA, Palm Springs).

16.3 Additional Infrastructure Other infrastructure requirements will be defined including maintenance facilities, train control and traction power systems.

13

16.4 Conceptual Maglev Operations Maglev technology specific train performance for both passenger and freight operations will be determined over the defined routes using a simulation program or spread sheet calculator. Operating plans, including train schedules will be developed for each screened, fixed guideway alternative to establish a basis for ridership, revenue, fleet requirements and O&M cost estimates.

17.0 COST ESTIMATES

17.1 Capital Costs Order of magnitude capital cost estimates will be prepared for screened alternatives. The capital cost estimate will provide order of magnitude costs for major items of work including civil work, fixed guideway, structures, station locations, right-of-way, train control and traction power systems, maintenance facilities and vehicles. Unit costs will be based on information available for Maglev technology.

17.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs O&M cost estimates will be prepared on the basis of the conceptual Maglev operations developed in task 16.4 above, using current operating data where available and estimates as reported in other recent studies.

18.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

A very preliminary assessment of potential environmental factors will be undertaken based on available GIS mapping data and existing documentation (e.g. existing reports and aerial photographs). Potential environmental constraints will be identified and evaluated. As archeological and biological resources are expected to be the most important environmental factors relative to implementing the proposed Maglev system, the evaluation will be limited to these two areas. The results will be summarized in a matrix which will facilitate the comparison of environmental constraints associated with the various alternative alignments. The narrative will also contain discussion of the potential mitigation measures available to reduce potential impacts to archaeology and biology resources including a discussion of relative costs.

19.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND ADVOCACY

Suggestions will continue to be developed on strategies and approaches to pursue with local, state and federal decision makers that would support future policies and funding to support integrated air-rail transportation networks. This will include input/recommendations for advocacy of institutional policy reforms and identification of funding strategies for future work including partnerships with other stakeholders.

20.0 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

SANDAG will reform a technical working group to encompass additional participants for Phase II of this project. This group will meet monthly. Meeting will be held at sites in both San Diego and El Centro, and if appropriate at a North location within the SCAG region. HNTB will be

14

responsible for the preparation of meeting announcements, meeting agendas and meeting summary notes.

21.0 PRESENTATIONS

PowerPoint presentations and technical handouts will be prepared for use in briefing the technical working group and stakeholders. Up to 12 briefings are anticipated for the Phase II study with half in San Diego and half in Imperial County, and if appropriate in the SCAG region. It is expected that the basic presentation materials developed will be adaptable for the presentations to multiple groups

22.0 DRAFT REPORT

HNTB will prepare the draft report summarizing the information developed through the course of the study including: • Project Definition Statement • Study Area Base Maps • Maglev Technology Information • Discussion of the development, refinement and presentation of alternative alignments, station locations and additional infrastructure needs. • Conceptual Maglev Operations • Cost estimates for capital requirement as well as operations and maintenance. • Ridership Modeling Results • A comparative analysis of Maglev against highway and conventional high speed rail modes. The draft report will include the conceptual design drawings of the alternatives and other pertinent information included as attachments to the report. An administrative draft will be prepared for review by SANDAG prior to submittal to other agencies.

23.0 FINAL REPORT

HNTB will prepare the final report incorporating SANDAG and other stakeholder comments. A meeting will be held to discuss the comments and ensure the appropriate actions will be taken. This step reduces the opportunity for misunderstanding and provides a clear direction towards the development of the final report. Once concurrence has been reached on all outstanding issues, the final report will be submitted to SANDAG.

24.0 MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

• Prepare Project Work Plan and Schedule • Submit monthly invoices and project status reports • Attend meetings and prepare meeting notices, meeting agendas and meeting summaries. o SANDAG Project Management (two meetings per month) o Project Team (two meetings per month) • Conduct QA/QC Review

15

SANDAG MAGLEV STUDY - PHASE I Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Task Name

1.0 PROJECT DEFINITION 1.1 Project Definition Statement 1.2 Study Area 1.3 Base Map Generation 1.4 Data Collection

2.0 MAGLEV TECHNOLOGY

3.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION 3.1 Route Alignment 3.2 Station Locations 3.3 Additional Infrastructure 3.4 Conceptual Maglev Operations

4.0 COST ESTIMATES 4.1 Capital Costs 4.2 Operations & Maintenance Costs

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

6.0 RIDERSHIP STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 6.1 Maglev Service Characteristics 6.2 Airport Passenger Demand 6.3 Transportation Model 6.4 Ridership Forecasts 6.5 Calibrate Transportation Model

7.0 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND ADVOCACY

8.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

9.0 TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

10.0 PRESENTATIONS

11.0 DRAFT REPORT

12.0 FINAL REPORT

13.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & COORDINATION

16 Task Order Coordination Technical Working Steve Quinn Group Mike Kraman Project Manager

Charlie Quandel

Planning Engineering Maglev Technology

Peter Gertler Keyvan Perbazari Charlie Quandel Ron Siecke Wayne Mauthe Peter Gertler Michele Difrancia Jim Murphy Jose Mortero Liem Nguyen

Institutional Environmental Mapping & GIS & Funding

Bruce McIntyre Rex Plummer Peggy Ducey

17 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

October 21 , 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 13

Action Requested: APPROVE

MID-CITY TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN AND SHOWCASE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT STATUS File Number 5000600

Introduction

In 2002, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) selected a corridor from San Diego State University (SDSU) to Downtown San Diego as a “Showcase” project for implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (see Attachment 1). Planning and preliminary engineering work was done for the central portion of the corridor within the Uptown and Mid-City communities.

In April 2004, we reported to the Transportation Committee that the proposed dedicated transit lane on portions of El Cajon Boulevard was controversial in the community, while other elements of the project (including signal priority treatments and station upgrades) were received positively. The community requested that SANDAG prepare a long-range comprehensive transit plan to address transit needs in Mid-City. The Transportation Committee agreed, and postponed further design work on the Showcase Project pending the plan’s completion.

Working with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) staff, we have prepared a draft network plan. The plan outlines a system of services and facilities to guide future transit investments in the area, including non-transit sources that community interests could help secure. This report highlights the plan’s recommendations and outlines future steps for transit improvements in Mid-City, including redefining the Showcase Project as “Rapid Bus” rather than BRT. Since BRT services require dedicated transitways to maintain high-speed operations, the Rapid Bus definition matches the level of transit priority treatment requested by the community. The Rapid Bus service reflects a phased strategy approach to developing higher speed service along arterial corridors that would initially implement various attributes of BRT (such as signal priority treatments and upgraded stations), while still pursuing a longer term strategy of dedicated transit lanes.

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to:

1. Review and comment on the draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan and authorize its distribution for review and comment by community and business groups for 60 days; and

2. Approve redefining the Showcase BRT project as a Rapid Bus project, with details on the specific service attributes to be determined following completion of our Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) and the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA).

3. Amend the FY 2006 Overall Work Program project listing for the Showcase BRT Project to reflect the redefinition of the project as a Rapid Bus service as outlined in Attachment 2.

Discussion

Study Process

SANDAG convened an advisory committee of community and business representatives from the Mid-City area to help identify the issues to be studied in the Mid-City Transit Network Plan and to provide input throughout the study process. The technical analysis was conducted by a consultant, and MTS staff worked closely with us to coordinate the study and incorporate the draft recommendations into its COA planning currently underway.

Issues Evaluated

Issues evaluated in the study arose from research into travel patterns, customer comments on existing Mid-City transit services, and input from the advisory committee. The research showed strong travel demand between the Mid-City area and Downtown San Diego, University City, Kearny Mesa, Sorrento Valley, and Southeastern San Diego, indicating those areas which warrant increased focus on improving connectivity and transit service frequency.

The advisory committee expressed a particular interest in the following issues:

• Providing better connections to job centers to the north of Mid-City via connections to freeway BRT services at the I-15 transit plazas at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue; • Improved circulation within the Mid-City area, especially connecting the Adams Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and University Avenue corridors; and • Increased investment in both transit services and facilities in and adjacent to the Mid-City community.

Highlights of the Draft Plan

The draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan includes recommendations for transit service in each of the four transit service categories identified in the MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Regional, Corridor, Local, and Neighborhood. BRT and Rapid Bus services (which can either be a Regional or Corridor service type) are a key element of the plan. These Regional and Corridor improvements would require capital investments, but can be implemented in phases over time. Most of the Regional and Corridor services identified in the Network Plan are consistent with projects and services in the 2030 RTP and TransNet Expenditure Plan. Many of the improvements identified for existing bus services (Local service type) can be implemented relatively quickly with minimal cost through operational changes. Service frequency enhancements and new shuttle routes (Neighborhood service type) will require additional operating dollars.

Attachment 3 shows existing transit routes in Mid-City, while Attachment 4 shows the service and facility improvements identified in the Mid-City Transit Network Plan. Attachment 5 includes a summary description of the transit services proposed in the Mid-City Transit Network Plan. Key to the plan is the redefinition of the Showcase BRT along El Cajon and Park Boulevards to a Rapid Bus service, and direct connections between the El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus and other transit services in the plan to the I-15 BRT currently under development as a TransNet Early Action Project. The connections would occur at the Mid-City Transit Plazas at I-15/El Cajon Boulevard and I-15/University Avenue.

2

The Showcase BRT was originally envisioned to travel between San Diego State University and Downtown San Diego along College Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and Park Boulevard and be equivalent to trolley service in terms of speed, service levels, and customer amenities. Attaining average speeds like that of trolley requires a high level of transit priority measures to bypass congested roadway segments. Increasing congestion along our roadways means that the use of dedicated transit lanes are needed along segments of arterial streets (in addition to signal priority treatments and queue jumpers) to achieve these speeds. For the Showcase project, dedicated transit lanes were proposed along sections of El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard to bypass congested areas. The Mid-City community expressed concern over possible impacts to businesses along El Cajon Boulevard from converting a general purpose travel lane to a transit lane.

While use of dedicated lanes along the Showcase project corridor could be a future improvement, the Mid-City Transit Network Plan identified other incremental improvements along the corridor that could be implemented to enhance transit service. Redefining the BRT to a Rapid Bus service, while not meeting the BRT threshold of priority treatments, can still achieve some level of speed and reliability improvements through use of other location-specific priority treatments such as signal priority and queue jumper treatments (which are supported by the Mid-City community). Rapid Bus services could also have enhanced customer amenities (such as upgraded stations, prepaid fare collection to speed up passenger boarding, and live “next vehicle” information signs). A detailed definition of BRT and Rapid Bus service attributes is being developed as part of our ITPR. However, we feel it is appropriate at this point to move ahead with redefining the Showcase project as a Rapid Bus service to allow us to begin defining the specific capital improvements for Rapid Bus service along El Cajon Boulevard with input from the ITPR Peer Review Panel and consultant. Upon completion of the ITPR, we would return to the Transportation Committee with a proposed set of service attributes for the El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus corridor.

Next Steps

The recommendation to the Transportation Committee is to release the draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan for review and comment for 60 days, and allow staff to move forward with redefining the Showcase project as a Rapid Bus rather than BRT service.

The schedule calls for a final Mid-City Transit Network Plan, incorporating comments from the Transportation Committee and community, in December. Based on feedback from the advisory committee on its priorities for improving transit services and facilities, we have outlined a series of likely next steps towards developing an implementation strategy:

• Pursue the Rapid Bus service concept for both the El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue corridors through phased implementation of improvements based on the BRT/Rapid Bus definition being developed as part of the ITPR now underway. Next steps could include developing a signal priority treatment implementation plan in conjunction with the City of San Diego (i.e., locations of priority treatments and equipment needs), designing key stations and queue jumpers along the route, and working with MTS to develop a Rapid Bus operating plan based on the outcome of the COA, which has incorporated the draft Mid-City Network Plan recommendations into the COA planning. Attachment 2 shows the proposed amendment to the Overall Work Program to reflect this changed approach. Once components of a Rapid Bus project are defined, they can be incrementally considered for funding and implementation through SANDAG’s annual budget process and capital projects funding program.

3

• Evaluate the proposed service changes to existing local bus routes and proposed shuttle routes with MTS based on the outcome of the COA.

• Pursue design of the I-15 Transit Plaza BRT freeway median stations at University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard as part of the TransNet I-15 Corridor Early Action Project (this effort is already underway as part of the I-15 BRT project).

These proposed next steps will be refined based on community and Transportation Committee comments on the draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Showcase Project Map/Fact Sheet 2. Revised OWP Work Element 50006 3. Map of Existing Transit Services 4. Proposed Mid-City Transit Network Plan Map 5. Summary Description of Mid-City Transit Network Plan Service and Facility Proposals 6. Draft Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Key Staff Contact: Miriam Kirshner, (619) 699-6995, [email protected]

4 Attachment 1

CAMP PENDLETON SDSU to Downtown

5 15

76 Transit First76 Showcase Project

VISTA OCEANSIDE 78 SAN MARCOS

ESCONDIDO

CARLSBAD More Transit, More Options, Better Traffic Flow

78

ENCINITAS 15 The Project: Design and build a ten-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) line from San Diego State University (SDSU) to Downtown 67 SOLANA BEACH 5 POWAY San Diego along El Cajon and Park Boulevards. The line will provide North Park, City Heights, and College area DEL MAR 56 residents, students, and visitors with fast, frequent, high- quality transit along this corridor.

SANTEE The Solution: The Showcase project aims to achieve faster travel times 67 8 52 and better reliability by using “transit priority” lanes, traffic

15 signal improvements, limited station stops, and global 805 EL CAJON 8 LA positioning systems (GPS) to track each vehicle’s location. 125 MESA 54 SAN DIEGO 15 163 Station enhancements to provide a pleasant waiting LEMON 94 125 GROVE 54 environment include upgraded shelters, “real time” bus 94 282 NATIONAL arrival information signs, level platforms to ease boarding, CITY 54 landscaping, and enhanced paving treatments. CORONADO 125 (over) 75 805 5 CHULA VISTA

IMPERIAL ES BEACH 905 UNITED STAT MEXICO

TIJUANA ������� ��������������������� ���� �����

The SDSU to Downtown ������������ ����� ������ ����������� ����������� Transit First Showcase Project ���� ������� �������� ��� �� will offer passengers high ����������������� quality transit that is faster, ������� �������

more frequent, and more ������� �������

��� ���������� ����������������� ���� ������� comfortable than current bus ������� ���� ������ ���� services in the corridor. �����

����� ��������� ������������������������ �������� ������������ ��������������������������� � ���������� ����������������� �������� ����������������������� ����� ���� ���� ������� ������� ��������

��������� �������� ��������

������� ��������

401 B Street • Suite 800 • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 699-1900 • www.sandag.org 5 Project Status: Preliminary engineering work on the central section of the corridor is underway and will soon be complete. Further environmental and design studies will be undertaken over the next several years. Assuming funding availability, the project could begin operations by 2007.

Route: The Showcase Project route is 9.9 miles between downtown San Diego to SDSU via Park Boulevard, El Cajon Boulevard, and College Avenue. Major activity centers that will be served include the downtown offices, shopping, and recreational facilities, Balboa Park, San Diego Zoo, the Mid-City communities, and SDSU. The Showcase project will tie into downtown trolley stations served by the Blue and Orange lines, the Mid-City Transit Plazas, and the new SDSU trolley station now under construction.

Showcase Transit First Project Features: Stations: Sixteen stations will be located at major activity centers and transfer points. Along with upgraded passenger shelters, the stations will be designed with technology enhancements that will provide real-time bus arrival information and ticket vending machines. Landscaping and possible public art components will reflect the surrounding community’s character to create a unique architectural design. All stations will be located in the public right-of-way, except for the SDSU station, which will be part of an off-street transit plaza. Stations will be designed to provide safe pedestrian access at intersections. New technology will allow passengers to pre-pay and to use “smart” (debit) cards, thereby streamlining the boarding process.

BRT Vehicles: BRT vehicles will have level boarding (no steps), and new fareboxes will accept “smart” cards to speed passenger boarding. Multiple doors will also streamline the boarding process. Comfortable seating and larger windows will improve the ride quality.

Transit Priority Lanes and Signal Timing: Colored pavement will designate the transitways along portions of Park and El Cajon Boulevards. Traffic signals will be timed to allow BRT vehicles to move more quickly through busy intersections.

ADA: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, each station will have uniform design features, and each vehicle will be accessible to passengers with disabilities.

The Builder: SANDAG is developing the plans and will provide oversight for the engineering and construction of the Stations and Transit Priority Lanes. This is one of SANDAG’s MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) projects to make public transit a first choice for many trips with a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe and convenient services connecting neighborhoods to major employment and activity centers.

For more information visit www.sandag.org

El Cajon Boulevard Transit Lane

May 2004 6 Attachment 2

PROGRAM WORK ELEMENT 50006.1 SHOWCASE MID-CITY BUS RAPID BUS TRANSIT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

BUDGET SUMMARY FOR OWP NO. 50006.1

Funds Source

Prior FY 06 FY 07-09 TOTAL

FTA MPO Planning (5303) $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA Transit Planning (5307) $320,000 $0 $0 $320,000 FHWA Metropolitan Planning $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA CMAQ $0 $0 $0 $0 Federal Other $0 $0 $0 $0 State Other $0 $0 $0 $0 TDA Planning/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 TransNet Program* $415,257 $451,807 $380,000 $1,247,064 Member Assessment $0 $0 $0 $0 Local Other $0$0$0$0 TOTAL $735,257 $451,807 $380,000 $1,567,064

Funds Application

Prior FY 06 FY 07-09 TOTAL Salaries, Benefits, Indirect $200,257 $175,732 $275,000 $650,989 Other Direct Costs $0 $1,075 $5,000 $6,075 Temporary Employees $0 $0 $0 $0 Contract Employees $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Services $535,000 $350,000 $885,000 Materials & Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 Pass-through/In-kind Services $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $735,257 $526,807 $280,000 $1,542,064

* TransNet Transit Planning Funds

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work element is to complete service plans for Rapid Bus Service for Mid-City, and to undertake preliminary engineering, final design, and environmental work for implementation of Rapid Bus service in the Mid-City community. Rapid bus service would implement various capital improvements (e.g., signal priority treatments, upgraded stations, vehicle/station branding) in a phased implementation that would be compatible with future implementation of the Showcase Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service project connecting San Diego State

7 University (SDSU) and downtown San Diego via El Cajon and Park Boulevardsthat could include transit lanes on portions of the route. . New work activities in FY 2006 will focus on preparing a signal priority procurement plan, preparing a Rapid Bus undertaking preliminary engineering for the corridor segments outside the focus area, preparing an operating service plan, starting design work on signal priority and lanes in Mid_-City, station plans, and preparing photosimulations of various route featuresstarting environmental work. The environmental work would be completed in FY 2007; final design work also could begin in FY 2007 as a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) project.

PREVIOUS AND ONGOING WORK

SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MOBILITY 2030, includes the Showcase BRT route from SDSU to Downtown San Diego as a high-priority project. In August 2002, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) selected this project as the Transit First Showcase Project and awarded a consultant contract for the preliminary engineering work in December 2002.

Prior work completed during FY 2003 and FY 2004 includes a traffic analysis to determine effects of transit priority treatments (i.e., transit-only lanes and signal priority measures); a comprehensive signal priority plan for the Showcase corridor; and preliminary engineering drawings for the transit- only lanes and stations in the focus area (Park Boulevard from University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard from Park Boulevard to 43rd Avenue). In addition, a prototype station design and construction cost estimates for the project have been developed. During FY 2005, the preliminary engineering study was completed for the focus area and the Mid-City Transit Network Plan was initiatedcompleted. In FY 2006, athe Mid-City Transit Network Plan was prepared completed, which recommends re-defining the Showcase Project as a Rapid Bus route, which would include various elements of the Showcase Project (excluding the transit lanes), and which allows for implementation in phases.

TASKS

01 Coordinate ongoing public involvement activities. (FY 2006 – 10%)

02 Finalize the Mid-City Transit Network Plan (FY 2006 –10%)

03 Develop Mid-City Rapid Bus service plan based on results of Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) and Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) (FY 2006 – 50%)

04 Begin first phase Rapid Bus facility definition and designimplementation that would include transit priority improvements, station upgrades, and photosimulations of route features (continuing into FY 2007) (FY 2006 – 30%)

02Complete preliminary engineering plans for the two ends of the corridor. (FY 2006 – 60%)

03Begin work on environmental documentation. (FY 2006 – 10%)

03Preparation of an operating plan for the route. (FY 2006 – 20%)

8 Committee(s): Transportation Committee; Other Boards and Committees: Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and San Diego City Council; Working Groups: City of San Diego Planning Commission and various community planning groups; Project Manager – Miriam Kirshner.

PRODUCTS

• Mid-City Transit Network Plan (Dec 2005)

•Preliminary engineering plans for full corridor. (April 2006)

•Completion of 25 percent of environmental work. (June 2006)

BRT Operating plan. (June 2006)

• Mid-City Rapid Bus Service Plan (March 2006)

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

FY 2007, activities include the completion of the Rapid Bus facility plan that includes capital components that could be implemented first phase implementation planning work environmental work and the start of final design work as a CIP project as funding permits.

9 Attachment 3

10 Attachment 4

Proposed Mid-City Transit Plan

Aù D R S R IA R !T %s F !T !T !_ !T !_ !T SDSU Kensington RD !T V TA !T !_ S A !T VI M

!T ?Þ T O DA !T NTEZ N N UM LI A RD

U

!^ Fashion Valley Normal O

M

!_ R

Heights I

!T T

A

S

ADAMS AV F !T

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

University L S ON B H AJ K C !_ A EL

T

Heights R

X

0

A

E

3

P T %s

Old Town Hillcrest EL CAJON BL T V V A !T S Y T

A I

T S ER

S IV D

RD N I U

3 WASHINGTON ST North Park L H

4

T ?Þ C

4 U

5

UNIVERSITY AV E

L COL

B LE GE

K AV R

V

A City Heights

A UPAS ST !T

!T P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B N V A

I O T A S

K H D US S M I

E !T H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CH

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s

?Þ !T V !T A

!^ T E

S M

Centre City O

V N ?À H

A

R

E

!T D

I

F !T !T !T T

L

!T S

C

H

BROADWAY U

T

E

7

4

?À !T !T MARKET ST !T !T !T ?Þ !T !T !T !T !T

Mid-City Study Area !T Trolley stops Proposed Regional Hubs Regional Service Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Orange Line Corridor Service ° Existing Regional Hubs Blue Line Local Service Miles Bus routes 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 MVE project (open 2005) Coaster Neighborhood Service 11 Attachment 5

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF MID-CITY TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN SERVICE AND FACILITY PROPOSALS

Regional Services – These services provide for regional, long-distance travel, along high-speed routes, with few stops oriented around major destinations. These services will build on Regional, Corridor, and express bus services planned for the Interstate 15 (the Managed Lanes project currently under construction), Interstate 805 (planned shoulder lane operation serving South Bay to downtown routes), and State Route (SR) 163 (Route 20 express service to Fashion Valley) corridors. The draft plan recommends improved connections with these freeway-based services at several transit hubs identified below (see Attachment 4), that are both within and adjacent to the Mid-City area:

• Existing bus/trolley stations at San Diego State University SDSU, Fashion Valley, and Euclid Avenue.

• Planned BRT stations at the I-15 Mid-City Transit Plazas on El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue.

• New transit hubs connecting future I-15 BRT services with the Green Line in Mission Valley. The I-15 BRT is one of SANDAG’s TransNet Early Action projects.

• Local/Rapid Bus services along University Avenue with the existing express service operating along SR 163.

Corridor Services – These services provide intercommunity travel on arterial streets, achieving higher speeds than local service through transit priority treatments and a more limited number of stops oriented around community and regional destinations. The Mid-City Transit Network Plan recommends Corridor services on both El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue:

• On El Cajon Boulevard, the corridor service follows the Showcase BRT project alignment between SDSU and Downtown San Diego via College Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and Park Boulevard. This project, originally envisioned as a BRT service, would be redefined to a Rapid Bus which is an enhanced bus service that, while not meeting the BRT threshold of priority treatments, can still achieve some level of speed and reliability improvements through use of other location-specific priority treatments such as signal priority and queue jumper treatments (which are supported by the Mid-City community). Rapid Bus services could also have enhanced customer amenities (such as upgraded stations, prepaid fare collection to speed up passenger boarding, and live “next vehicle” information signs). Rapid Bus could also be the first phase toward a longer term BRT application in the corridor.

• On University Avenue, community interests are forwarding a proposal, called the University Avenue Mobility Plan, to redesign University Avenue within North Park to provide safer pedestrian facilities, dedicated transit lanes along University Avenue between I-805 and Park Boulevard, bus stop consolidation, and relocation of on-street parking from University Avenue to side streets. Pending the completion of the ITPR, a Rapid Bus service could be proposed for the existing local Route 908 corridor between Mid-City and Old Town Transit Center via North Park, Hillcrest, and Mission Hills (see the Attachment 4 map). Rapid Bus would enhance the attractiveness of transit in the corridor by providing high-speed service both for tripmaking between these various communities and a fast connection from Mid-City to other regional trolley and bus services at the Old Town Transit Center.

12 Local Services - Local bus service provides a high level of access to transit and serves short trips. To make local grid service work, high frequencies are needed (15 minutes or better in core areas). Better connections to Regional and Corridor services are also needed. Key changes proposed for existing local bus services include:

• Connect Route 11 to the new I-15 transit plaza stations to improve connectivity between the Adams Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and University Avenue corridors.

• Connect Route 13 north-south service along Fairmount Avenue to the I-15 transit plaza stations to improve access to existing express services and future BRT routes along the I-15 corridor, and improve connectivity from Mid-City to Del Cerro.

• Increase the all-day service frequencies of Routes 6 and 13 to 15 minutes to improve connectivity to Mission Valley and improved north-south service on Fairmount Avenue, respectively.

Neighborhood Services - Neighborhood circulators and shuttles provide access into neighborhood areas and enhance connections to other Regional and Local bus and trolley services at key transit stations/transfer hubs. They can be served with large or small vehicles, depending on the demand and street configurations. Routing alignments should be bi-directional and simple to understand, take a half hour or less per direction to ensure high-service frequencies can be maintained cost- effectively, and easy-to-remember trip times. Three neighborhood services routes are proposed that would serve the City Heights, North Park, and SDSU areas (shown on the Attachment 4 map).

13

Mid-City Transit Network Plan Report Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 1 2. Study Area...... 1 3. Existing Conditions ...... 3 4. Mid-City Transit Network Plan...... 27 5. Conclusion...... 37 6. Appendix – Advisory Committee Meetings...... 38

Page i San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

1 Introduction

The Mid-City Transit Network Plan is a long-range comprehensive transit plan to serve the Mid-City area. The idea of preparing a network plan originated from community members as an outcome of discussion about the proposed El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project. The Showcase Project is a planned rapid transit line between San Diego State University (SDSU) and downtown San Diego, running along El Cajon and Park Boulevards. Various members of the public questioned how the Showcase Project would fit into a network of services for the community and recommended that a plan be prepared as a vehicle to debate community priorities for transit improvements. Therefore, this study was undertaken to define a network of services including the neighborhood, local, corridor, and regional services needed to serve the Mid-City communities. The network plan outlines both a long-term (Year 2030) vision for service improvements in the project area, and a phased implementation plan based on community priorities. This plan was developed with the assistance of an advisory committee consisting of community and business interests.

.The study addresses the mobility needs of the Mid-City area, both internally and its connections to the regional network. Transit issues related to the rest of the region are being addressed by the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) study.

2 Study Area

The Mid-City network plan study area (Exhibit 1) extends from the south rim of Mission Valley to just south of University Avenue, and from SR 163 east to the San Diego/La Mesa boundary.

Page 1 !a

Aù D R S R IA R !T %s F !T !T !_ !T !T !_ !_ RD !T V TA !T S A !T VI M

!T ?Þ T O DA !T NTEZ N N UM LI A RD

U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

!T T

A

S

ADAMS AV F !T

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E

E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV !T S Y IT T ERS S IV

RD UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C

D OL I

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST !T

!T P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B N V A

I O T A S

K H D US S M I

E !T H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CH

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s

?Þ !T V !T A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

!T E

F BROADW!TAY!T !T T

V

!T S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C T ?À ! !T U

E MARKET ST

!T !T !T ?Þ %s !T !T !T !T !T

MExhibit 1 !T Trolley stops Mid-City study area Mid-City Study Area Orange Line Blue Line Bus routes Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS °

MVE project (open 2005) Coaster Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

3 Existing Conditions A number of planning and transportation studies have been conducted on the transit mobility issues of Mid-City. A brief discussion of each follows.

3.1 Area Planning Studies

Mid-Cities Community Plan – August 1998 This plan noted the high density nature of Mid-City the major activity centers nearby, and the fact that a large percentage of the population is transit dependent. The Transit Vision stated for the area was: “an efficient transit system that features fixed rail, electric buses, and intra- community shuttles”

The transit goals for the area were stated as follows: ▪ To provide accessible public transit service for all residents, employees, shoppers, and visitors to Mid-City. ▪ To provide a high level of public transit service along major corridors. ▪ To provide direct public transit access to major regional employment centers.

The recommendations for transit were as follows: ▪ Provide fixed rail on I-15 as soon as possible (note: light rail was being studied at the time; the corridor is now planned for high speed Bus Rapid Transit). ▪ Reevaluate the feasibility of fixed rail transit along El Cajon Boulevard or adjacent east-west streets. ▪ Consider the expansion of express bus service in Mid-City, linking the population centers to major activity centers in San Diego. ▪ Enhance existing urban level bus service to the extent possible by increasing the frequency of service, adding express service, reducing between buses, allowing buses to pre-empt traffic signals, and improving transit stops and surfacing of streets along bus routes. ▪ Consider the feasibility of restoring the fixed rail service on University Avenue between I-805 and Euclid Avenue, or provide a “rubber tire trolley” service. ▪ Provide shelters on all transit corridors.

Page 3 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Greater North Park Community Plan – November 1986 Greater North Park Community Plan includes public transit objectives as follows: ▪ Provide a high level of public transportation service linking Greater North Park with Mission Valley and downtown. ▪ Evaluate the feasibility of fixed rail transit service to the community.

Uptown Community Plan – February 1988 The Uptown Community Plan includes the following public transit objectives: ▪ Provide a high level of transit service and promote usage. ▪ Establish a focal point of transit service within the community.

This plan identifies the 4th and 5th Street corridors as high intensity public transit corridors where density should be enhanced to promote better access by residents to transit. This corridor is immediately west of the Mid–City study area.

Mid-City Bus Study – April 1999 The purpose of this study was to analyze the current transit service and needs in the Mid-City area and to recommend alternatives to improve service. Transit issues were identified as follows: ▪ The Mid-City area has a strong grid network of line-haul routes and crosstown bus routes, with one peak period express route connecting to Downtown San Diego. ▪ There are no unmet needs in terms of service coverage. ▪ Travel data suggests a need for transit service to Kearny Mesa, an important work trip destination for Mid-City residents. Current transit connections are either very circuitous and/or require a transfer at the Fashion Valley Transit City. ▪ Travel time is a major concern of transit riders. The El Cajon Boulevard corridor is an excellent candidate for a priority corridor demonstration project. Such a project offers maximum benefits if done at the corridor level instead of only at one or two intersections. ▪ Automated Vehicle Location technology would provide additional benefits in ensuring on-time performance and reducing costs if integrated with a priority treatment scheme for buses.

Recommendations of the study were as follows:

▪ Implement express bus service on El Cajon Boulevard between downtown and SDSU in the “peak of the peak” period.

Page 4 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

▪ Conduct a signal priority demonstration project along El Cajon Boulevard through Mid-City. ▪ Provide a new express bus service to Kearny Mesa and continuing to the University City/Sorrento Mesa area. ▪ Extend Route 8 to the proposed new transit plaza on El Cajon Boulevard at I-15. ▪ Reroute service along along Fairmount Avenue to connect to the trolley. ▪ Provide streetscape improvements at current on-street transfer locations.

Mission Valley East Bus Study - 2003 The purpose of the Mission Valley East (MVE) Bus Study was to identify potential changes to the existing fixed route bus network serving MVE stations to enhance access from surrounding communities, modify the transit network as needed to reduce duplication with the new trolley line, and improve travel throughout the affected communities. The following recommendations for route revisions were made: 1. Discontinue Route 81 and establish a new shuttle route between Fashion Valley and Grantville, including new service along Camino del Rio South. 2. Provide weekend service on Route 27 between Pacific Beach and Fashion Valley, 3. Reroute Route 1 to use Montezuma east of SDSU 4. Reroute Route 936 to terminate at the 70th Street Station 5. Streamline Route 13 via Fairmount Avenue and replace the Allied Gardens–Del Cerro loop with new Route 13. 6. Truncate Route 15 at the El Cajon Transit Center and replace service east of the transit center with a new County route. 7. Add frequency on Routes 13 and 936 during peak periods.

University Avenue Mobility Plan – June 2004 The University Avenue Mobility Plan (UAMP) analyzed existing and future transit needs of University Avenue residents and visitors in the context of a plan to calm traffic, improve pedestrian safety, and beautify University Avenue through North Park. The transit portion of the UAMP study evaluated how best to use the transit lanes recommended in the new street design and how to modify the existing bus routes to provide improved service. In this plan, consideration was given to a variety of transit priority strategies to improve service attractiveness and to make more efficient use of resources. The plan recommends measures such as bus stop consolidation, traffic signal coordination, bus lanes, and limited stop operations These measures would enhance the speed of transit vehicles using University Avenue, thereby providing better service and freeing up

Page 5 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

resources that can be used to improve frequencies. The study evaluated two service options including local and express services along the corridor. Further evaluation is required to determine the extent and frequency of these local and express services.

MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is currently undertaking a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of the system. The COA is intended to address the following issues: ▪ Financial Constraints: The need for reduced subsidies of $13 million in the immediate future to reverse a budget shortfall ▪ Transit Facility Development: Respond to development of new transit facilities in the region. ▪ Regional Service Concept: The development of the regional service concept will connect the COA recommendations with the RTP and ensure an integrated transit network and an effective transition to the approved TransNet transit projects. ▪ Service Strategies: The service strategies will be developed for the specific market geographies based on the previous market segment analysis conducted for MTS and SANDAG. ▪ Balancing Productivity and Coverage: The COA will address the competing needs of maximizing service coverage versus providing services where they are most utilizied. ▪ Travel Demand/Market Basis: The study will develop a regional service concept that acknowledges that transit cannot serve all areas and markets well, and must focus on areas where it can operate effectively.

3.2 Mid-City Existing Conditions This section of the report is broken into three areas to focus on the travel needs of the Mid-City area. These areas are: ▪ Market Assessment ▪ Current Transit Service ▪ Key Findings and Opportunities

3.2.1 Market Assessment Land Use and Topography The Mid-City area is a vibrant section of the city comprised of a variety of diverse communities. Land use within the Mid-City study area as illustrated on Exhibit 2 is a combination of residential and commercial/retail together with San Diego State University. The neighborhoods adjacent to the major travel corridors, University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard, have medium to high residential densities. The

Page 6 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C D O I L

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST

P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 2 Land Use in San Diego, 2000 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Agriculture Low-density residential Public facilities and institutions ° Extraction, construction and vacant Medium- to high-density residential Water and floodways Industrial Commercial Mixed urban Miles Transportation and utilities Open space and recreation 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

commercial areas are focused largely along the east-west corridors (El Cajon Boulevard, University Avenue, and Adams Avenue), and along the north-south 30th Street. The northern and eastern sections of the study area are primarily lower density residential areas, except near SDSU, where higher density student residences are prevalent. North of the study area, Mission Valley has a mixture of retail/commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Immediately to the south of the study area, lower density residential and open space uses are prevalent. The Mid-City mesa is separated from Mission Valley on the north and areas to the south by sharp elevation drops that allow limited roadway access. There are canyons on the south and west side of Mid-City that isolate individual communities and limit access from adjacent neighborhoods, limiting options for a complete network of regional and local transit services.

Population Within the Mid-City study area, the population density is concentrated in a 1¼ mile band centering on the University/El Cajon corridors between Park Boulevard and 54th Street (see Exhibit 3). There are a few other areas with dense population near SDSU. The northern fringe and the areas east of 54th Street generally contain lower density residential development. Population growth is expected to occur through redevelopment at higher densities (see Exhibit 4).

Employment Except for the SDSU area and the western areas of Hillcrest and North Park, employment density is low (see Exhibit 5). Retail employment is concentrated along the frontages of El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue. Future employment in Mid- City is expected to increase in density, particularly between Park Boulevard and I-805 and in the vicinity of I-15. Also, areas on the eastern fringe of the study area are expected to accommodate increased employment density (see Exhibit 6). Many residents of leave the Mid-City area for work, making fast travel to regional employment centers a key element for transit success.

Travel Demand Travel demand to and from the Mid-City is significant. Trips have been categorized by work, school, and other and are shown on Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, respectively.

Work Trips (Exhibit 7). Exhibit 7 illustrates the two-way work trip travel demand between Mid-City and areas within San Diego County. Work destinations (197,000) are spread across the County with the key areas of attraction as follows: ▪ Centre City 7.8% ▪ University City 5.0% ▪ Mission Valley 4.4% ▪ Kearny Mesa 4.2%

Page 8 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C D O I L

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST

P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 3 Fewer than 15 Population Density 15 - 29 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Residents per acre ° by Master Geographic Reference Area, 2000 30 - 44 Mid-City study area Miles 45 or more 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A C D O I LLE L GE

C AV U

V

E

A UPAS ST

H Aù

V

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 4 Fewer than 15 Population Density, 2030 15 - 29 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Predicted number of residents per acre ° by U.S. Census Block Group, 2030 30 - 44 Mid-City study area Miles 45 or more 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C D O I L

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST

P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 5 Fewer than 10 Employment Density 10 - 19 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Jobs per acre ° by U.S. Census Block Group, 2000 20 - 29 Mid-City study area Miles 30 or more 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A C D O I LLE L GE

C AV U

V

E

A UPAS ST

H Aù

V

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 6 0 - 4 Employment Density, 2030 5 - 9 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Predicted number of jobs per acre ° by U.S. Census Block Group, 2030 10 - 14 Mid-City study area Miles 15 or more 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Exhibit 7 Daily home-to-work trips that SORRENTO VALLEY begin or end in Mid-City, 2000

1,000

2,500

UNIVERSITY CITY 5,000

MIRAMAR 7,500

SERRA MESA

TIERRASANTA SANTEE KEARNY MESA Center City 15,387 7.8% University City 9,743 5.0% Mission Valley 8,683 4.4% WEST NAVAJO Kearny Mesa 8,177 4.2% LINDA VISTA La Mesa 6,395 3.3% Southeast San Diego 6,136 3.1% Internal trips 6,037 3.1% MISSION VALLEY Midway / Airport 5,875 3.0% LA MESA Harbor & Naval Station 5,211 2.7% Chula Vista West 4,955 2.5% Miramar 4,759 2.4% Sorrento Valley 4,615 2.3% Linda Vista 4,506 2.3% MIDWAY / AIRPORT Skyline / Paradise Hills 4,387 2.2% MID-CITY EAST West Navajo 3,932 2.0% Santee 3,912 2.0% Serra Mesa 3,786 1.9% Mid-City East 3,458 1.8% Tierrasanta 1,138 0.6% CENTER CITY Other neighborhoods 85,604 43.5% SKYLINE / 196,697 100.0% PARADISE HILLS SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO

HARBOR AND NAVAL STATION CHULA VISTA WEST °

Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS

Miles 01234 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Other key destinations are La Mesa, southeast San Diego, the Midway/airport area, and internal trips within Mid-City itself.

College Trips (Exhibit 8). Travel from Mid-City to colleges include City College in downtown San Diego and SDSU in the northeast area of Mid-City. With over 30,000 students SDSU is a major trip attractor from throughout the region. Exhibit 8 shows student travel demand to and from Mid-City. Over 30 percent of the overall trips (35,000) are between Mid-City and just eight zones: ▪ Linda Vista 8.7% ▪ West Navajo 3.0% ▪ Downtown SD 7.9% ▪ Universal City 2.4% ▪ La Mesa 4.2% ▪ Mid-City East 2.4% ▪ SE San Diego 3.1% ▪ Skyline/Paradise Hills 2.1%

Each of these zones generate over 700 trips per day, with the largest two being over 2,500 trips per day. The remainder of the trips are spread throughout the County.

Other Trips (Exhibit 9). The vast majority of the 555,000 “other” (non-work) trips on Mid-City streets start and end within the Mid-City area. The following top five zones attracting “other” trips to or from Mid-City are directly contiguous to Mid- City, further emphasizing that people tend to stay close to home when making other trips. ▪ Mission Valley 5.2% ▪ La Mesa 5.2% ▪ Mid-City East 4.8% ▪ SE San Diego 4.7% ▪ Downtown San Diego 4.3%

This data suggests the need for an effective Mid-City transit network of corridor, local, and neighborhood services that facilitates internal mobility effective connections to the regional transit network, including the trolley, I-15 BRT, and SR 163 express bus.

3.2.2 Existing Transit Services Transit Network The transit network within Mid-City is largely grid oriented, in conformance with the street network (see Exhibit 10). The network makes strong connections between Mid- City and downtown San Diego, and provides good access to the downtown trolley stations. The east-west corridors have higher service levels (15/30 minutes) than the north-south corridors (30/60 minutes), due to the concentration of residential densities and commercial development along the east-west corridors This disparity in frequency diminishes the effectiveness of the transit network grid, limiting both local mobility and access to points north and south of Mid-City. Table 3.1 summarizes the services in Mid- City.

Page 14 Exhibit 8 Daily college trips that begin or end at SDSU, 2000 UNIVERSITY CITY MIRAMAR 10

25

50

75 TIERRASANTA SANTEE KEARNY MESA 100

SERRA MESA WEST NAVAJO LINDA VISTA

MISSION VALLEY LA MESA

MIDWAY / AIRPORT MID-CITY EAST

CENTER CITY SKYLINE / PARADISE HILLS

SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO ° HARBOR AND NAVAL STATION CHULA VISTA WEST

Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS

Miles 01234 Exhibit 9 Daily trips, other than work or school SORRENTO VALLEY that begin or end in Mid-City, 2000

1,000 UNIVERSITY CITY 5,000 MIRAMAR 10,000

SERRA MESA 50,000

TIERRASANTA SANTEE KEARNY MESA Internal Trips 555,399 40.0% Mission Valley 72,875 5.2% La Mesa 71,683 5.2% WEST NAVAJO Mid-City East 66,170 4.8% LINDA VISTA Southeast San Diego 65,014 4.7% Center City 59,178 4.3% Midway / Airport 47,346 3.4% West Navajo 31,647 2.3% MISSION VALLEY Linda Vista 31,188 2.2% LA MESA Kearny Mesa 26,107 1.9% Skyline / Paradise Hills 21,181 1.5% Serra Mesa 18,692 1.3% Chula Vista West 16,304 1.2% MIDWAY / AIRPORT University City 13,595 1.0% MID-CITY EAST Santee 11,138 0.8% Tierrasanta 9,993 0.7% Harbor and Naval Station 9,642 0.7% Miramar 5,248 0.4% Sorrento Valley 3,011 0.2% Other Neighborhoods 268,283 19.3% CENTER CITY 1,390,101 100.0% SKYLINE / PARADISE HILLS SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO

HARBOR AND NAVAL STATION CHULA VISTA WEST °

Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS

Miles 01234 15 8 , 1 , , 0 2 3 41 0 5 9 1 5 4 4 4 25 0 1, 4 4 25, 9 44 2 , !a 44 7 0 13 41 3 0 50 8 6 9 0 , 13 4 0 3 5 8 1 9 2 , 13 0 1 Aù

2 13 SDSU , , 960 3 4 5 , 3 830, 1 5 1 7 8 1 2 11, 13, 15 4 9 1 8 !T , 0 2 !T 13 4 81, 115, 0 0 9 %s 27 !_ 8 2 9 1 44 !T , Fashion Valley 6, 13, 20, 9 936, 955 25 3, 9 8 85 25, 27, 41, 81, 928, 990 13 1 !_ 1 81 4 81 936 !_ !T 11, 13, 13, 115, 936 6 81 11, 81, 95 1, !T ?Þ V 5 MO 81 1,

A N 5 !T 13, 81 T 81, 936 44 81 EZUM 15A, 876 1 13, T A RD 15, 81 1 , 81 3, 8 6, N 5 7 1 U 2 11, 13 1, 15, O

!_ 6 936 T !T M 5 S 876 R 1 20, 2 ADAMS AV 11 I , 27 !T 210, 11 11 11 955 1 H A 115, 936

T

F

820, 850, 0

5, 7

T

81 6 6 810, 3 , 860 S , 15 2 1 1 2 6 115

T 6 40, 960

H 830,

!_ S 5 7 , T

11 5 9 1, 15, 1, 6, 15, 11 11 0 1, 8 80 D BL , 3 %s 1, 15, 115 JON 7, A 7 , R L C 6 5 115 E 936 AV 1 1 15, 115 EL CAJON BL 3 TY !T 4 I 7 , T S 0

8 5 T ER 7

1 S IV 1 S N 0 U

H 3 9 S 3 9 70,

T

A 7 5 , 70, 955 2, 6 7, 908, 965 0 4 7 GTON ST 2 7, X WASHIN 13 UNIVERSITY AV 5 , 876

E 965 908 7, 7 1, 70 11,

T 990 908 7, 908 7, 70 8 3, 16, 875, 5 90 7, 908, 1, 15, 908 936 908 6B C 5, 9 876

V 875, 876 , ?Þ 965 OLL 36 A 0 E

990 0 115 955 G 7 6 E T A V V 2, 6, 965 , 9

S A 13

, 1, 3, 25 7 0 Old Town 1 5 0 965 965

4 D

UPAS ST 3 I !T

5, 6, 9, 26, !T 8 L 856, 936 C 6 V 856,

A 1 U

28, 34, 35, ?À V

965 E

V

H 6A, 965 916, 936

A

A

T R 11, 990 11, 5, 955

S 44, 81, 908, 6

D T College Grove L 3 T G N V B 1 T Coaster T !^ N U A

5, 856, 916, 936 E I T K 5 V S 1, 3, 25, 990 O D

S H 6 A I S R

!T 9 876 H M S E L U

A LAUREL ST H 965 T R R M C H P

I T

E 0 O U

C

4

A P 3 H E

5

A Aù F

S

3 5 S 7 , 1 A 876,

13 %s 0 Euclid Avenue M

7 13 916 15, 20, 20C, 115, 810, 820, 850, 860 850, 820, 810, 115, 20C, 20, 15, , 3, 4, 5, 13, 16, 6 2, 6 0 0?Þ 1 4 3 9 !T 8 V 955 603, 916, 955, 960 8 76 !T !^ A 16 5 E M 960 , O ?À 70 H 960 America Plaza 2 40, !T T

!T !T T V ! BROADWAY 0 S 2, 4, 7, 15, 20, 40, !T 3 A 916 8

H 6

D

T 40, 70, 830 I

70, 210, 850, 860, 7 L 6 13, 16 1 4 9

C

?À 916 MARKET ST 5, 16, 4 901, 902, 922, 929, !T !T 5, 16 5, 16 U

E 955, 960 932, 992, Coaster 5, 6, MARKET ST !T !T !T 16 ?Þ %s !T 5, !T 6 13 4 !T !T !T

Exhibit 10 Transit Routes Serving Mid-City Study Area, 2004 Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS ° Orange Line Coaster Mid-City study area Miles Blue Line Bus routes !T Trolley stops 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

TABLE 3.1 Existing Service Frequency

Weekday Saturday Sunday AM PM Route Midday Eve Midday Eve Midday Eve Peak Peak REGIONAL 830 3 trips 3 trips 960 15-50 30 20 15 15 15 30/60 30 30/60 30 30/60 CORRIDOR 15/115 15 15 15 30 30 60 30 60 7 6 12 6 20/30 12 30 12 30 908 15 15 15 15/30 30 30 30 30 70 30 30 LOCAL 1 30 30 30 45/60 30 30 2 1011113015301530 6 3030306030603060 11 10/15 15 15 30/60 20 40 20 40 13 30 30 30 60 30 60 30 60 936 30 30 30 60 30 60 30 60 955 15 15 15 30 30 30/60 30 30/60

NEIGHBORHOOD 965 30 30 30

Note: time in minutes; periods with multiple times indicate change in frequency mid-period.

Transit Demand Exhibit 11 shows demographic data that predicts residents’ likelihood to use transit. The Residential Transit Oriented Index (RTOI) condenses five demographic characteristics associated with transit usage: residential density; zero vehicle households; population in poverty; youth population; and senior population.1 The southern and western portions of the study area have a high propensity for transit use, while the northern and eastern areas have an average propensity.

1 For each variable, a score is assigned to each census block group based upon how that variable compares to the countywide average. The score is derived using a comparative probability estimation method. A composite score is then obtained for each census block group by summing the scores for each of the four individual variables. These composite scores are then ranked and assigned to one of five transit orientation groups (very high, high, moderate, low, and other) based upon how each compares to the average score for the county as a whole. A higher score typically reflects a greater propensity to use transit.

Page 18 !a

Aù D R S R IA R %s F !_ !_ !_ RD V TA S A VI M

?Þ T O DA NTEZ N N UM LI A RD U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

T

A

S

ADAMS AV F

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV S ITY

T S D ER S IV

R UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C D O I L

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST

P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B A N S V I O T S

A K H D S M I E H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CHU

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s ?Þ V A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

E

F BROADWAY T

V

S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C ?À

U

E MARKET ST ?Þ %s

Exhibit 11 Residential Transit Orientation Index -2 (unlikely to use) 1 Likelihood that residents will use mass transit Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS ° based on housing density, zero-vehicle households, -1 2 (likely to use) senior and youth population and persons in poverty Miles by Master Geographic Reference Area, 2000 0 Mid-City study area 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Table 3.2 summarizes the passenger boardings and alightings on Mid-City transit routes. Over 26,000 passengers per day board and alight buses in Mid-City. The University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors dominate the demand, accounting for 39 percent and 26 percent of passenger activity, respectively. Table 3.2A breaks down the passengers traveling east-west and north-south in the Mid-City area. Over 70 percent of the passenger boarding and alighting in the area are traveling east-west.

Table 3.2 - Mid-City Passenger Ridership

Passengers Boarding Passengers Alighting

Route Inbound Outbound Total Route Inbound Outbound Total

1 1,321 860 2,181 1 826 1,190 2,016 15 1,685 1,176 2,861 15 1,052 2,184 3,236 115 1,140 641 1,781 115 796 918 1,714 6,823 6,966

7 4,950 2,751 7,701 7 2,408 5,202 7,610 908 1,753 676 2,429 908 775 1,690 2,465 70 197 14 211 70 16 137 153 10,341 10,228

11 705 648 1,353 11 691 1,420 2,111

2 1,290 537 1,827 2 555 1,409 1,964 6 755 827 1,582 6 322 693 1,015 3,409 0

13 605 468 1,073 13 379 559 938

955 1,371 261 1,632 955 258 1,262 1,520

936 534 222 756 936 219 505 724

81 226 472 698 81 251 428 679

40 17 1 18 40 2 34 36

990 74 4 78 990 43 3 46 965 253 253 965 292 292

TOTAL 16,876 9,558 26,434 TOTAL 8,593 17,926 26,519

Table 3.2A - Mid-City Passenger Ridership Passengers Boarding Passengers Alighting

DIR. INB % OUTB % INB % OUTB %

E-W 11,751 69.6% 6,766 70.8% 6,564 76.4% 12,741 71.1% N-S 5,125 30.4% 2,792 29.2% 2,029 23.6% 5,185 28.9% Total 16,876 100% 9,558 100% 8,593 100% 17,926 100%

Page 20 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Exhibit 12 illustrates transit ridership by bus stop for the routes in Mid-City. In addition, passenger activity on Park Boulevard, 30th Street, Adams Avenue and at SDSU is also significant. The Mid-City routes have a high level of turnover in ridership, indicating strong internal travel demand. ▪ Route 1 – Along El Cajon Boulevard, 48 percent of passengers are traveling locally within the study area. ▪ Route 7 – Along University Avenue, 43 percent of passengers are traveling locally within the study area. ▪ Route 908 – 27 percent of ridership is local to Mid-City east of Park Boulevard with another 40 percent boarding and alighting on the route between Park Boulevard and the Pacific Highway (largely in Hillcrest). ▪ Route 2 – Along 30th Street, 46 percent of passengers board and alight locally between Myrtle and Adams Avenue. ▪ Route 6 – Nearly the entire passenger load turns over within Mid-City between 30th/Myrtle and Texas/Madison. ▪ Route 13 - Passenger loads virtually turn over within Mid-City between Myrtle/Fairmount and SDSU. Table 3.3, which follows, illustrates ridership on University Avenue. Only 4 percent of the ridership east of 69th Street, and only 21 percent of ridership travels east of Fairmount Avenue. This trend is addressed by higher frequency service in the western portion of the corridor, with extra service on Route 7 west of 33rd Street, and extra service on Route 908 west of Fairmount. Downtown-destined passengers amount to 35- 40 percent of total ridership. This trend does not support the current provision of express service from La Mesa and the eastern part of the study area to downtown (via Route 70, which uses I-15), while the major concentration of passengers along the western part of the corridor have only local bus service. Table 3.4 illustrates the segment ridership for El Cajon Boulevard. Only 8 percent of the route ridership travels east of 73rd Street. Similar to the University corridor demands, downtown-destined passengers amount to about 20 percent of the total passengers boarding along the route (a significantly lower percentage than the University corridor). As noted earlier, the UAMP study recommended that an improved transit service incorporating stop consolidation and transit priority measures be implemented along University Avenue. The El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project is intended to provide similar benefits in that corridor.

Page 21 !a

Aù D R S R IA R !T %s F !T !T !_ !T !T !_ !_ RD !T V TA !T S A !T VI M

!T ?Þ T O DA !T NTEZ N N UM LI A RD

U

!^ O

M

!_ R

I

!T T

A

S

ADAMS AV F !T

H

T

T

T

L 0

S

S

7

B

S

H

K !_ A T BL R N X JO 0 L CA A E

E

3

P T %s

EL CAJON BL T AV !T S Y IT T ERS S IV

RD UN

3

H

4

T ?Þ WASHINGTON ST 4

5

UNIVERSITY AV

V A

L C

D OL I

B LE L

GE K

C AV

R U

V

A

E

A UPAS ST !T

!T P

H Aù

V RICHMOND ST

T

V

A

6

?À

A

R S

T D T

T

N

L V G E

U

T B N V A

I O T A S

K H D US S M I

E !T H !^ R S L

R

M T H A I LAUREL ST R C CH

O 4 T

P E A U A H 5 0

P F E S

3

S

A

M %s

?Þ !T V !T A

!^ T E

S M

O N ?À H

R

!T E

F BROADW!TAY!T !T T

V

!T S

A

H

D

T I

7 L

4

C T ?À ! !T U

E MARKET ST

!T !T !T ?Þ %s !T !T !T !T !T

Exhibit 12 !T Trolley stops Daily Weekday Orange Line Offs 750 500 250 Boardings and Alightings Ons Blue Line Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS Mid-City Study Area, 2004 ° Green Line (open 2005) Miles By stop, combined inbound and outbound Coaster Mid-City study area 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Table 3.3 - University Avenue Corridor Ridership

Inbound Outbound Total Segment Route Ons Offs Ons Offs Ons Offs

La Mesa to 69th 7 426 117 137 438 563 555 4.0% 4.0%

69th to 54th 7 640 145 159 728 799 873 70 26 0 2 21 28 21 Total 666 145 161 749 827 894 5.9% 5.5%

54th to Fairmont 7 1,049 455 467 1,122 1,516 1,577 70 82 3 3 57 85 60 Total 1,131 458 470 1,179 1,601 1,637 11.5% 12.0%

Fairmont to 33rd 7 1,223 706 764 1,087 1,987 1,793 908 1,005 154 215 968 1,220 1,122 70 88 13 9 59 97 72 Total 2,316 873 988 2,114 3,304 2,987 23.7% 21.9%

33rd to Park 7 1,507 949 982 1,520 2,489 2,469 908 594 389 334 612 928 1,001 Total 2,101 1,338 1,316 2,132 3,417 3,470 24.4% 25.4%

Park to Centre City 7 806 3,189 3,457 1,071 4,263 4,260 30.5% 31.2%

7 5,651 5,561 5,966 5,966 11,617 11,527 Total Route 908 1,599 543 549 1,580 2,148 2,123

70 196 16 14 137 210 153

Corridor Total 7,446 6,120 6,529 7,683 13,975 13,803

Page 23 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Table 3.4 - El Cajon Boulevard Corridor Ridership

Inbound Outbound Total Segment Route Ons Offs Ons Offs Ons Offs

El Cajon T.C. to La Mesa 1 15 411 99 166 576 577 675 115 568 339 342 628 910 967 Total 0 0 0 0 577 675 0 5.0% 5.9%

La Mesa to 73rd 1 15 226 133 88 113 314 246 115 Total 0 0 0 0 314 246 2.7% 2.2%

73rd to College 1 275 24 14 173 289 197 15 185 146 143 248 328 394 115 Total 185 146 143 248 617 591 5.4% 5.2% College to Fairmont 1 490 253 192 449 682 702 15 562 292 411 820 973 1,112 115 499 185 151 350 650 535 Total 1,061 477 562 1,170 1,623 1,647 14.2% 14.5%

Fairmont to 30th 1 262 207 222 233 484 440 15 397 225 413 525 810 750 115 327 244 169 273 496 517 Total 724 469 582 798 1,306 1,267 11.4% 11.1%

30 to University 1 191 251 264 222 455 473 15 245 207 363 330 608 537 115 202 186 166 166 368 352 Total 447 393 529 496 976 889 8.5% 7.8%

University to Downtown 1 471 954 838 453 1,309 1,407 15 114 1,038 1,324 244 1,438 1,282 115 77 719 672 83 749 802 Total 191 1,757 1,996 327 2,187 2,084 19.1% 18.3%

Route Total 1 1,689 1,689 1,530 1,530 3,219 3,219 15 2,140 2,140 2,908 2,856 5,048 4,996 115 1,673 1,673 1,500 1,500 3,173 3,173

Corridor Total 5,502 5,502 5,938 5,886 11,440 11,388

Note: Route 115 joins the El Cajon corridor at College Boulevard. Route 15 begins at 73rd Street.

Page 24 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

3.2.3 Route Performance The greatest transit ridership in Mid-City is along the University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors. The north-south routes (with the exception of Route 2 between Adams Avenue and downtown and Routes 5/955 south of University) carry a limited number of passengers. Public complaints about bus bunching on El Cajon Boulevard appear to be valid. The overlap of Routes 1, 15, and 115 do not always provide for even headways. Buses are also scheduled to operate frequently at peak periods, causing bunching when any bus is noticeably early or late. Passenger counts do not indicate any overloading in the El Cajon corridor. On the contrary, there is ample service for the current demand. For the most part, average loads are well below seated capacity; however, overcrowding on a given bus can occur when one or more buses are running late. Improved bus speed and schedule reliability, along with a more even service headway,would help address these problems of bunching and occasional overcrowding. There are 95 bus routes operating in central and south San Diego County. Sixteen of these routes operate in the Mid-City area. Table 3.5 shows the performance ranking of the Mid–City routes relative to the system as a whole.

Table 3.5 - Mid-City Route Rankings

Passengers Per Passengers Per Subsidy per Revenue Hour Revenue Mile Psgr Boarding Route Rank (out of 95) Rank (out of 95) Rank (out of 95)

1106 16

15 21 19 25

115 32 36 38

7333

908 14 7 4

70 39 35 73

11 20 13 24

26 5 10 6331229 13 27 32 32 955 7 9 8 936 31 21 22 81 45 42 51 40 60 70 70 990 83 90 86 965 84 74 82

Page 25 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

The key routes in Mid-City are among the top performers in the MTS system. For each of the three measures considered, there are ten Mid-City routes in the top third system- wide. The poor performing routes in Mid-City are either express services that operate in peak periods (Routes 40 and 990) or a shuttle route (Route 965).

3.2.4 Opportunities and Challenges A number of new and planned transit services present opportunities for Mid-City. ▪ The opening of the Mission Valley East Trolley (Green Line) provides the opportunity to reorient transit services to improve both service directness and access to the Trolley, SDSU, and Mission Valley. ▪ The planned development of the I-15 transit stations at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue will allow passengers in the Mid-City area to access the planned I-15 BRT service and reach a variety of key destinations, especially employment centers along the I-15 corridor. ▪ The proposed El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project to develop either full BRT or Rapid Bus service between SDSU and downtown will improve service to downtown by providing faster travel times and better schedule reliability.

There are also challenges: ▪ Improved frequencies and new services must be made within budget constraints, at least in the short term. ▪ Implementation of proposed Rapid Bus service on University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard will require both funding and support. ▪ While the reauthorization of TransNet provides funding for the planned I-15 transit stations at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue, no other facilities for Mid-City are currently budgeted.

3.3 Existing Condition Conclusions Goals for the network plan fall into three major categories – connections to the regional transit network, internal travel, and service quality. Objectives for each are defined below. 1. Connection to the regional transit network ▪ Improve connections to regional services - Reduce corridor travel times - Increase direct Mid-City service connecting to regional hubs - Develop additional regional hubs

Page 26 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

▪ Minimize connecting times - Increase service frequencies on key routes - Reduce need to transfer ▪ Improve connections to: - Major job centers in Centre City, Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, University City, Sorrento Valley, and Southeast San Diego - Schools – SDSU, City College, UCSD, USD, high schools - Recreation – beaches, sports, entertainment ▪ Improve access to Mid-City from other areas - Develop two-way regional and corridor transit serving Mid-City 2. Internal Mid-City travel ▪ Need to improve internal Mid-City circulation - Improve core grid of local service (address lower frequency of north- south service) - Improve access to major Mid-City destinations including SDSU, senior high and middle schools, and community centers ▪ Stations should be within reasonable walk distance of housing and activity centers where feasible 3. Service quality ▪ Reduce passenger waiting times - Improve frequencies ▪ Reduce travel delay (speed up travel) - Provide BRT enhancements (signal priority, reserved bus lanes where appropriate, queue jumpers, consolidated bus stops) - More low floor transit vehicles (for faster boarding) - Streamlined and reoriented routes ▪ Improve service reliability - Improve scheduling to minimize bus bunching and overcrowding - Use automatic vehicle location (AVL) for improved schedule reliability and passenger information - Improve passenger information

4 Mid-City Transit Network Plan SANDAG’s Transit First program identifies four types of transit service to meet four distinct types of travel.

▪ Regional Services (Yellow Car Routes) - Long distance travel - Highest speeds with fewest stops - Oriented around major regional destinations ▪ Corridor Services (Red Car Routes) - Arterial-based inter-community travel

Page 27 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

- Moderate to high speed with stops spced ½ to 1 mile apart - Oriented around both community and regional destinations ▪ Local Services (Blue Car Routes) - Provides basic community mobility - Low to medium speeds with frequent stops - Provides access to the regional and corridor network ▪ Neighborhood Services (Green Car Routes) - Provides neighborhood circulation, connections to the network, and coverage to areas that are otherwise unserved - Low speeds with frequent stops

A recommended service plan for Mid City is described below.

4.1 Proposed Regional Service (Exhibit 13) The proposed Mid-City Transit Network Plan includes the following regional services that are already programmed as part of the Regional Transportation Plan:

▪ Three Regional Services - I-15 BRT service between Escondido and downtown San Diego - I-805/I-15/SR52 BRT between South Bay and Kearny Mesa–UTC– Sorrento Valley - SR163 Express bus to Fashion Valley and Kearny Mesa ▪ Regional/Corridor Transit Stations - University Avenue/I-15 - El Cajon Boulevard/I-15

No new regional services are proposed as part of the Mid-City Network Plan. However, a new regional transit station is proposed on University Avenue at SR163. The SR 163 hub would allow easy transfers from the east-west El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue service to regional routes serving Mission Valley and Kearny Mesa employment areas.

4.2 Proposed Corridor Service (Exhibit 14) There are existing proposals for providing higher speed transit services along El Cajon Boulevard (the Showcase Project) and University Avenue (UAMP). These proposals include priority treatments to allow buses to achieve higher speeds. The El Cajon Boulevard service would connect SDSU and the Mid-City communities to downtown via Park and El Cajon Boulevards. Two routing options were evaluated for the University Avenue corridor as part of this network plan. One option would develop Rapid Bus service to downtown San Diego (along the Route 7 alignment) and retain local service to Old Town (along the Route 908 alignment). The other option would reverse the services, with Rapid Bus to Old Town and local service to downtown. The latter option was recommended by the advisory committee and is included in this plan.

Page 28 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

4.3 Proposed Local Service (Exhibit 15) The recommendation for local service include improving frequencies, reducing delay, providing more direct connections to regional and corridor services, and adjusting routes to avoid duplication in light of the opening of the Mission Valley East Trolley.

▪ Improve frequencies on core grid service - Allow for convenient walk-up transfers by providing service frequencies conducive for spontaneous use - Most local routes should operate at a 15-minute frequency all day within Mid-City portions ▪ Improve connections to Regional and Corridor services - Route the Adams Avenue service (Route 11) to the I-15 stations at University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard, and terminate the route near University/Fairmount instead of SDSU. The service would operate on I- 15 between the two stations at University and El Cajon. - Service on Fairmount Avenue (Route 13) should connect with the I-15 stations and with the Green Line Grantville Station; service will continue to connect with the Orange Line. - Improve local connections to Mission Valley Green Line Trolley via Texas with a revised and more frequent Route 6 operating between North Park and Mission Valley. - Reverse the routing of Route 13 around Del Cerro/SDSU and create a separate service for the Mission Valley portion of the route - Serve the area east of SDSU (Alvarado/Montezuma) with neighborhood service (shuttle) instead of local bus service

Local service is an important part of the overall transit system. In order to make the local grid service work effectively, higher frequencies are needed (15-minutes or better in core areas).

4.4 Proposed Neighborhood Services (Exhibit 16)

This plan recommends three neighborhood shuttle routes that can operate bi- directionally (30-minutes or less in each direction). The shuttle routes are: ▪ City Heights area (Home Avenue, Euclid, I-15) ▪ North Park (Texas/30th/Adams/Upas) ▪ SDSU (Alvarado/Montezuma)

The entire proposed Mid-City transit network is presented in Exhibit 17.

Page 31 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

4.5 Proposed Mid-City Transit Plan – Service Frequencies The proposed service frequencies reflect the need for a grid network of regional, corridor, and local services that provide frequency levels suitable for spontaneous use by the average passenger (minimum of 15 minute frequency during weekdays ).

Proposed Service Frequency

Weekday Saturday Sunday AM PM Route Midday Eve Midday Eve Midday Eve Peak Peak REGIONAL I-15 BRT 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30 I-15/I-805 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30 SR 163 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30

CORRIDOR

El Cajon Rapid (15/115) 10 10 10 15 15 30 15 30 Univ-OTTC Rapid (908)1012103012301230 LOCAL 1 - El Cajon 1515153015301530 2 - 30th/Broadway 10 10 10 30 15 30 15 30 6 - Texas 1515153030303030

7 - University 8 12101512301230

11 - Adams 1515153020402040

13 - Fairmount 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 936 - College 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 955 - 54th 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 NEIGHBORHOOD City Heights 3030303030303030 North Park 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Alvarado/Montezuma 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Note: time in minutes.

4.6 Proposed Mid-City Transit Plan – Operating Costs The impact of the proposed Mid-City Transit Plan on operating costs is estimated at an additional $12 million annually, based on the changes in the network and service frequencies. These additional costs will be partially offset by increased revenue from increased passenger use of the improved services.

Page 35 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Additional Annual Operating Costs - Proposed Service

Annual Service Annual Operating Peak Vehicles Hours Cost Regional 27 108,720 $8,698,000 Corridor 3 29,694 $2,079,000

Local 2 4,738 $284,000

Neighborhood 4 27,600 $966,000 Mid-City Total 36 170,752 $12,027,000

Note: Operating cost per hour (FY2006 dollars): Regional $80.00; Corridor

$70.00; Local $60.00; Neighborhood $35.00.

4.7 Phasing Recommendations The advisory committee for the Network Plan were asked to complete two exercises to help prioritize the recommended improvements to the Mid-City transit network In the first exercise, members were given a constrained amount of money to spend on the network, with the budget being inadequate to fund the entire package of improvements. In the second exercise, members were asked to prioritize the improvements assuming an unconstrained budget. The Advisory Committee’s priority investment order for each task was:

A. CONSTRAINED BUDGET

1. Increase I-15 and I-805 service frequencies 2. Implement Rapid Bus service on El Cajon Boulevard (including signal priority, station upgrades, and queue jumpers, but not including transit lanes) 3. Build the transfer station connecting I-15 with the Mission Valley light rail line 4. Implement Rapid Bus service on University Avenue, connecting to Old Town 5. Increases frequencies on north/south local routes 6. Implement the City Heights shuttle 7. Implement the North Park shuttle 8. Build the transit station connecting University Avenue to SR163 9. Complete the local bus route adjustments 10. Implement the SDSU area shuttle

Implementing BRT service on El Cajon Boulevard, which was defined to include transit-only lanes, was not recommended for funding in the constrained budget scenario.

Page 36 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

B. UNCONSTRAINED BUDGET

Improvements were recommended in the following priority order.

1. El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus service 2. Increased frequencies on local north/south routes 3. City Heights shuttle 4. Increased I-15 and I-805 service frequencies 5. I-15/Mission Valley light rail transfer station 6. North Park shuttle 7. Local bus route adjustments 8. University Avenue Rapid Bus service to Old Town 9. SDSU- area shuttle 10. I-805/Orange line hub

5 Conclusion This study addressed the transit requirements of the Mid-City area. The Advisory Committee constituted to review the findings of the study provided valuable input regarding local needs and preferences.

The resulting network plan will allow SANDAG to proceed with incorporation of the recommendations into the overall transportation development plan and for incorporation into the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis.

Page 37 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

6 Appendix: Mid-City Advisory Committee Meetings

6.1 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Findings (Meeting 1) As part of the Showcase Project and this study, an Advisory Committee was constituted to discuss and review transit service needs and potential improvements in the Mid-City area. The committee was comprised of business community members, community group representatives, local area planners, and institutional representatives. A first meeting was held on December 2, 2004, to advise the committee members of the project and to gather information and opinions regarding Mid-City transit needs. There were a variety of comments relating to transit in general and overall transit planning for San Diego. Specific comments regarding transit needs for Mid-City can be summarized as follows: ▪ Lack of service reliability ▪ Bunching of buses ▪ Overcrowding ▪ Inability to easily connect between Mid-City and major employment areas ▪ Directness of service ▪ Greater emphasis on north/south services

These comments were consistent with passenger comments received by MTS and SANDAG.

6.2 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Initial Recommendations (Meeting 2) The preliminary Mid-City Network Plan was presented to the Advisory Committee on February 24, 2005. There was strong support for the improved services in the I-15 and I- 805 corridors. However, a proposed diversion of the regional service from I-805 to serve the Euclid Trolley Station was questioned as costly time-wise and not supported. It was suggested that a connection be developed between the I-15 services and the Mission Valley Trolley without leaving the freeway. In addition, there was strong support for the corridor service option connecting to the Old Town Transit Center with BRT. The strongest points of contention appeared to be the construction of reserved bus lanes on El Cajon Boulevard and the impact of same direction buses needing to pass each other along the University Avenue BRT corridor (the community plan calls for one and one general travel lane in each direction). With regard to the local services, there was good support for the changes, especially the rerouting of Route 11 to serve the I-15 hubs at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue. The proposed neighborhood routes were well accepted. The idea of two-way service with even headways (every 30-minutes) received strong support. Comments were

Page 38 San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

provided that there were other areas within the Mid-City study area that could support similar type neighborhood service particularly south and east of SDSU. A request was also made to consider extending the City Heights shuttle south to meet the Orange Line. A variety of other comments were received that dealt with current operation and the potential for improvement.

6.3 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Final Recommendations (Meeting 3) Based on the comments provided by the Advisory Committee members at Meeting 2, additional work was done to refine the proposed network changes. Fieldwork was also undertaken to confirm that the proposed neighborhood shuttles could operate as proposed. The following changes were made to the Mid-City network plan: ▪ New transfer hubs were added at the following locations: - Mission Valley Green Line Trolley with I-15 BRT. - Orange Line Trolley with I-15/I- 805 BRT. ▪ Corridor services were revised to include: - The option for University Rapid service to Old Town with local service to downtown San Diego. - BRT and local service on University Between I-805 and Park Boulevard to have the same stops with no passing. ▪ Neighborhood service routes adjusted to ensure reliable cycle times: - North Park route streamlined to stay west of I-805 - City Heights route option supported calls for shortened loop route east from I-15 over current Route 965 via Myrtle St., Fairmount Ave., Home Ave., Euclid Ave., Landis St., to 43rd Street and University Avenue. The foregoing update was presented to the Advisory Committee on April 28, 2005. The revised plan was accepted with the majority of discussion focusing on the City Heights neighborhood shuttle. Some committee members believed that some service should be provided between the areas south of University up to the El Cajon corridor. This change was not supported by the Committee. It was noted that the proposed local service network included 15-minute service on Fairmount (Route 13) connecting City Heights with El Cajon Boulevard. At this meeting, the members were asked to assist with prioritizing the recommended transit improvements. The results of this exercise were presented in Task 4.7.

Page 39 This Item Relates to Agenda Item #9 Transportation Committee October 21, 2005

October 14, 2005

TO: Gary Gallegos, SANDAG Executive Director

FROM: Hon. Joe Kellejian, SANDAG Transportation Committee Chair

SUBJECT: North County Coastal Appointment to the SANDAG Transportation Committee

I have met with all of the North County Coastal primary representatives on the SANDAG Board to discuss the North County Coastal’s alternate vacancy on the Transportation Committee. The consensus was to select Oceanside Mayor Jim Wood to that position. Per Deputy Mayor Crawford’s suggestion that I contact Mayor Wood to discuss this issue with him, Mayor Wood has accepted this appointment.

Please accept this memo as official notice that Mayor Jim Wood will serve as the North County Coastal alternate representative on the SANDAG Transportation Committee, effective immediately.

Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions.

cc: Transportation Committee Members This Item Relates to Agenda Item #10 Transportation Committee October 21, 2005

From: Sharon Zell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:30 PM To: Gunn, Deborah Subject:

I am writing regarding Rural Bus Service, which I understand is to be discussed tomorrow morning. I ride occasionally from El Cajon to Ramona, and Ramona to Borrego Springs or Ranchita.

The changes that I have heard are to be discussed are a reduction in service, and significant increase in price. It is my understanding that soon rather than costing $3 to ride from El Cajon to Borrego or Ranchita, it may cost $10, an increase of 233%.

It seems to me that the goal of the MTS should be to increase ridership. I think of the goals of mass transit as reducing the number of people driving their individual cars, thus reducing wear and tear on the roads, decreasing air pollution, and decreasing gas consumption, especially beneficial in today's world. I thought an additional and very important goal of Rural Bus Service was to serve members of the rural community who may find transportation difficult. The proposed changes of schedule reduction and dramatically increased fare can only decrease ridership, fail to provide adequate service to those who may really need it, and probably ensure extinction of the service altogether.

I hope reason will prevail and a different approach will be taken for any adjustments in Rural Bus Service.

Sincerely, Sharon Gott

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. This Item Relates to Agenda Item #10 Transportation Committee October 21, 2005

COMMENTS ON RURAL BUS SERVICE

Person and Date and Time of Call Phone Message Woman caller, anonymous I’m concerned about not only the fare but the reduction of service that you’re providing. The rural bus is the lifeline for people out in the rural areas--it’s all 10/18/05, 4:10 p.m. they’ve got. And I understand it has run for decades very successfully. I’m not sure what’s happened – I don’t think it’s a compliment to whoever is running it right now. I don’t understand why the hearing is not being held at a place that’s more convenient for the users. It would seem to me that it should be out in a rural area because you’re having a hearing at a time that the people it really matters to probably won’t be able to attend; they probably don’t have a bus. And I am concerned also, I think that you’re raising the cost from 3 to 10, that’s what I understand, now maybe I’m in error, but raising it from 3 to 10 is putting a tremendous burden on people who can’t, in my opinion, afford it. We talk about helping people who are somewhat disadvantaged or struggling with money and then we keep heaping more and more on them. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Thank you.

Dr. Steve Harshburger, I am really against this fare increase. I am a retired serviceman, with 20 years in Borrego Springs the service. Already I’ve had to cancel three appointments at the Veteran’s Hospital. Additionally, I’ve talked with John Connett at Caltrans Division of Mass 10/19/05, 1:44 p.m. & 1:48 Transit and he informed me that in the entire history of the back country, p.m. respectively especially rural, that state Transportation Development Act funding has never, been threatened to be taken away because of a 10 percent farebox thing. Paul and that group of people have just made it into a “the sky is falling” thing and we will continue to fight this. This bus that you’re talking about was a Laidlaw contract a little of two years ago was expedited because of mass discrimination of Latinos, senior citizens, and mentally health people out here in Borrego Springs if you remember. So, kind of go back and look at that why this particular bus contract was let, and we sent copies of all those discrimination things to the MTD Board, validating those types of things with e-mails from Lawrence, Ken Karnes, Susan Hafner, and all those people.

My last comment on this fare increase is that I would direct your attention to July 11, 2005, Gloria Penner full focus program, which your Director of Communications and one of your consultants at the last minute gives his view on the overall efficiency and professionalism of the staff for the development of the San Diego County transportation system. Thank you very much for your consideration and we hope that you will do a good job for us.

-----Original Message----- From: Ted Caragozian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:58 PM To: Gunn, Deborah Subject: Rural Bus proposed fare increases

To Deborah Gunn, Clerk of the Board: Please convey this message to whoever at SANDAG is considering this fare increase requested by the MTS for the Rural Bus. Thank you.

To the Transportation Committee and Board of SANDAG:

The SANDAG person I spoke to on the phone made it sound like the fix is in, that you're going to rubber stamp the MTS's fare increase, but just in case it's not a done deal, I want to voice some observations. We need some help here and maybe you're the folks who can do it. I am a long-time rider of the Rural Bus. Twenty years or so. Things were going along fine for the most part, til the County of San Diego fobbed it off on MTS. MTS has mismanaged it so badly that now it looks terrible on paper, but the solution isn't to finish it off. It's an important link for back-country residents and we shouldn't have to suffer for MTS's poor decision making. To think MTS management has been making a living from destroying the Rural Bus is hard to take. The proposed steep rate hikes would be the final straw. Please don't let them do it. I suggest instead that they fire the incompetent people who've made this mess and put the schedule back the way it was before they started. They expanded the schedule way more than the area will support, so of course the cost recovery is low. How about using the numbers from when the county still ran it. I remember full buses and the drivers told me that fare recovery was 10%. The increase MTS has proposed is a 333% jump for the fare to the big city. A 67% increase for the cost of a ride to Ramona. Yes, it's been a few years since the last adjustment, but that one was a 58% addition to my Ramona ride. A round trip to El Cajon will be $20! Driving alone, it is only $12 of gas in my own vehicle, more convenient and quicker. We need to provide incentive for people to use mass transit, not squeeze them out. Please help us out here. Start by telling MTS to take a hike and don't let them hike our fares! Thank you. Ted Caragozian, Ranchita

______Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com

2 3